McCain and The Company He Keeps

[rayboyusmc]

Because he has sway with a block of voters? Too easy.

Thank you Gunny. You win the Kewpie doll. Just my point.

If you accept the support of someone like Hagee to gain votes, then you are giving credence to his teachings and belief.

Kathiane, if you can criticize Obama for having a pastor who's statements he denounces, I can criticize McCain for accepting the support of mr. Rupture or Rapture, Hagee.

I keep hoping that somewhere along the line, we will get down to what is really important in these elections and discuss the stupid little issues like the war, the economy, FISA, the housing market, job loss and other incosequential crap like that.

Obama is not a terrorist just because his middle name is Hussein or because he is Black and White.

What will McCain, Clinton or Obama as president do for this country? :

 

[Paulie]

What will McCain, Clinton or Obama as president do for this country? :

Let's see..

All 3 of them will:

* Continue the wealth transfer
* continue and expand the war (unless you actually believe the Dem rhetoric?)
* Spend more money we don't even have
* Erode the dollar
* Erode more liberties

Those are the guaranteed's. Those are the ones you can bank on, given their respective records.

Obama's somehow different because he offers hope and change? A simple look back at history shows you what hope and change are for us...More of the same, with a different disguise on. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

 

[ReillyT]

And at that time one would presume that you felt it was fine for those senators to have such a 'tight' relationship? Seems Congress felt differently, reprimanding them for 'poor judgment,' though nothing improper.

The relationship Obama has with Ayers goes back a long ways, as Ayers hosted Obama's first fund raiser in 1995; the relationship with Wright over 20 years; how long with Michelle, "finally proud of the US"?

Keating wasn't a Senator. He was a businessman and major campaign contributor to McCain, and McCain's wife was a major investor in one of Keating's businesses. Keating went to jail. Cranston was censured. The other four Senators were criticized for "questionable conduct." (P.S. Why does it matter what actions McCain took if we are interested in judging them instead on the basis of who they know?)

If we insist on tossing out trash about the candidates, this would seem to call into question McCain's character at least as much as any association of Obama's (and the Ayers one is particularly weak if you have done any serious reading about it).

Of course, I would rather we not do this at all. We could always take the high road and judge the candidates on their own actions and their own words.

 

[jreeves]

Keating wasn't a Senator. He was a businessman and major campaign contributor to McCain, and McCain's wife was a major investor in one of Keating's businesses. Keating went to jail. Cranston was censured. The other four Senators were criticized for "questionable conduct." (P.S. Why does it matter what actions McCain took if we are interested in judging them instead on the basis of who they know?)

If we insist on tossing out trash about the candidates, this would seem to call into question McCain's character at least as much as any association of Obama's (and the Ayers one is particularly weak if you have done any serious reading about it).

Of course, I would rather we not do this at all. We could always take the high road and judge the candidates on their own actions and their own words.

This is truly funny....
Bennett, who was the special investigator during the Keating Five scandal that The Times revisited in the article, said that he fully investigated McCain back then and suggested to the Senate Ethics Committee to not pursue charges against McCain because of "no evidence against him." Bennett was coincidentally on Hannity and Colmes the night the story broke to talk about his autobiography. On the show, he said that he felt the Committee pursued charges against McCain because, without him, the case would have been entirely against Democrats. [6]

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

 

[ReillyT]

This is truly funny....
Bennett, who was the special investigator during the Keating Five scandal that The Times revisited in the article, said that he fully investigated McCain back then and suggested to the Senate Ethics Committee to not pursue charges against McCain because of "no evidence against him." Bennett was coincidentally on Hannity and Colmes the night the story broke to talk about his autobiography. On the show, he said that he felt the Committee pursued charges against McCain because, without him, the case would have been entirely against Democrats. [6]

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

Bennet was also employed by McCain as his attorney at the time he said that.

However, that is not my point. My point is that it is silly to judge the candidates purely on the basis of people that they know, regardless of whether those people's views and actions reflect the candidate's. In this sense, wierdly, I am actually defending McCain... and Obama.

I am more okay with looking into Wright, because he was Obama's pastor for years (however, after looking into it, I am satisfied that these views don't reflect on Obama). I am also okay with Michelle Obama, because, like Wright, that is a particularly close relationship (although, once again, it doesn't cause me concern). My problem is attributing something negative to Obama because he knows Rezko (for which there is no evidence of wrongdoing on Obama's part), Ayers, and Khalidi.

If that is the tact that is going to be employed, McCain is just as susceptible as Obama. Alas, it would not be fair to either of them.

 

[Gunny]

And McCain is the one who promised to "pay off" the people by whom he was just "endorsed" by giving them a VP who will continue to try to advance their theocratic agenda.

Gee... which is worse?

Worse would be you continually posting this same allegation and not providing anything to subnstantiate it, nor that it falls within the context you are implying.

Just for you:

By Matt Stearns - Mcclatchy Washington Bureau
Published 12:00 am PDT Monday, June 11, 2007

WASHINGTON-In his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination, Arizona Sen. John McCain is reaching out to conservative Christians, and many of them want to know how much McCain reaches out to God.

McCain has written movingly of how his faith helped him survive 5 1/2 years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, but he says little about the current role of religion in his life.

"I think it's something between me and my creator," McCain said in an interview with McClatchy Newspapers. "It's primarily a private issue rather than a public one. ... When I'm asked about it, I'll be glad to discuss it. I just don't bring it up."

But in an era in which the Republican Party has become heavily dependent on conservative evangelical Christian voters conditioned to eight years of overt faith talk from many GOP politicians, including President Bush, some want McCain to deliver a more open discussion of his faith. Even Democrats, long regarded as the more secular party, this year have seen its leading presidential candidates openly discuss the importance of their faith.

more ... http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/215531.html

The facts don't support your accusations.

 

[Gunny]

Thank you Gunny. You win the Kewpie doll. Just my point.

If you accept the support of someone like Hagee to gain votes, then you are giving credence to his teachings and belief.

Kathiane, if you can criticize Obama for having a pastor who's statements he denounces, I can criticize McCain for accepting the support of mr. Rupture or Rapture, Hagee.

I keep hoping that somewhere along the line, we will get down to what is really important in these elections and discuss the stupid little issues like the war, the economy, FISA, the housing market, job loss and other incosequential crap like that.

Obama is not a terrorist just because his middle name is Hussein or because he is Black and White.

What will McCain, Clinton or Obama as president do for this country? :

You mean like Obama is quietly accepting Louis Farrakhan's endorsement? Sorry, but I don't agree.

Both parties are full of minority groups with agendas that support whichever candidate comes closest their beliefs. Accepting their votes and their money is NOT embracing their agendas. The two are neither mutually inclusive nor exclusive.

 

[jillian]

Worse would be you continually posting this same allegation and not providing anything to subnstantiate it, nor that it falls within the context you are implying.

What do you mean it's not substantiated. HE SAID IT ON CHRIS MATTHEWS' SHOW THE OTHER NIGHT!!! Does he have to sign, seal and deliver it with hugs and kisses just for you?

Just for you:



The facts don't support your accusations.

I don't understand the point of the article. It's from last year, before McCain got all huggy huggy with his evangelicals....

AND WAAAAAAAAAAAAAY before McCain professed his love of the unborn on Hardball.

It's not the endorsement IT'S THE PERVERSION OF U.S. law based on the endorsement.

When you see Obama or Clinton trying to force that down *my* throat, let me know... I'll talk about them the same way.

 

[rayboyusmc]

So, it's agreed. We can start the flip-flop attack on McCain now?

 

[ReillyT]

So, it's agreed. We can start the flip-flop attack on McCain now?

McCain is conservative on social beliefs (if I am not mistaken). The man cozied up to the Republican base during an election. Every politician embraces the base of the party during an election. They would be a fool not to.

 

[jillian]

So, it's agreed. We can start the flip-flop attack on McCain now?

Well, there's certainly enough material...

http://youtube.com/results?search_query=mccain+flip+flop&search_type=

 

[Gunny]

What do you mean it's not substantiated. HE SAID IT ON CHRIS MATTHEWS' SHOW THE OTHER NIGHT!!! Does he have to sign, seal and deliver it with hugs and kisses just for you?

If you are going to attempt to present it as evidence to support an allegation ... yes.

I don't understand the point of the article. It's from last year, before McCain got all huggy huggy with his evangelicals....

AND WAAAAAAAAAAAAAY before McCain professed his love of the unborn on Hardball.

The point of the article is that McCain is NOTHING you are attempting to dishonestly portray him as.

It's not the endorsement IT'S THE PERVERSION OF U.S. law based on the endorsement.

When you see Obama or Clinton trying to force that down *my* throat, let me know... I'll talk about them the same way.

I don't see McCain trying to force ANYTHING down your throat ... well ...except for what you are just flat-out making up.

The only perversion here is the way you are trying to twist something into what it clearly is not.

 

[Dogger]

Yeah, and if you haven't made up enough shit, there's more where THAT comes from, I'm sure.

I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here, gunny.

Jillian simply posted a link to a page full of clips showing McCain making one flip-flop after another.

It's John McCain himself, speaking on camera, as he loves to do. I don't think he was tortured into making those statements, but let me know if that is not correct.

It isn't Clinton, or Obama, or someone else accusing McCain. It's McCain himself!

How is that making up shit? Tell me; I'm really trying to understand.

 

[Gunny]

I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here, gunny.

Jillian simply posted a link to a page full of clips showing McCain making one flip-flop after another.

It's John McCain himself, speaking on camera, as he loves to do. I don't think he was tortured into making those statements, but let me know if that is not correct.

It isn't Clinton, or Obama, or someone else accusing McCain. It's McCain himself!

How is that making up shit? Tell me; I'm really trying to understand.

Let's get something straight here and now ...

I don't use the term flip flop and never have. While it may actually have held meaning at one time, it is now used to dishonestly portray candidates/politicians either changing their stances for cause on issues, or taking two statements on the same issue out of context to try and show a "flip-flop." The two statements on Roe v Wade made by McCain as a prime example.

I would rather have a candidate/President who changed his/her stance on an issue because of changing facts and circumstances than one who just closed his/her mind to the possibility of change.

As far as your specific question goes ... my comment was made in regard to the alarmist fearmongering that McCain is going to "pay back" evangelicals who support him by pushing some theocratic agenda for them.

 

[Dogger]

I would rather have a candidate/President who changed his/her stance on an issue because of changing facts and circumstances than one who just closed his/her mind to the possibility of change.

When John Kerry said "I voted for it before the bill before I voted against it", he was talking about a bill that had been amended during the interim.

Did you ever disparage Kerry for that, or use that quote against him?

As far as your specific question goes ... my comment was made in regard to the alarmist fearmongering that McCain is going to "pay back" evangelicals who support him by pushing some theocratic agenda for them.

Wouldn't it have been better to quote the earlier post or posts that were the subject of your response?

 

[Paulie]

Accepting their votes and their money is NOT embracing their agendas.

But voters as a whole will never get that. It makes for a really easy time for the MSM to do their dirty work on candidates, too. Look what it did to Paul.

Let's get something straight here and now ...

I don't use the term flip flop and never have. While it may actually have held meaning at one time, it is now used to dishonestly portray candidates/politicians either changing their stances for cause on issues, or taking two statements on the same issue out of context to try and show a "flip-flop." The two statements on Roe v Wade made by McCain as a prime example.

I would rather have a candidate/President who changed his/her stance on an issue because of changing facts and circumstances than one who just closed his/her mind to the possibility of change.

I can get behind that. But the problem is, not every change in position is because of a change in facts. I'm willing to bet that more changes in position happen when voter consensus changes, then when facts change. Politicians pander. They pretty much have to in this election environment. And with that comes changes in positions if your base moves away from theirs.

Those are the politicians I hate the most. The ones who have no real position on anything, only whatever is the flavor of the week. It's one of the biggest reasons I'm a Paul supporter. You ALWAYS know where he stands.

 

[Paulie]

McCain's two opposing stances on the tax cuts are a good example. In 01, 03, 04 ,and 05 he was against them for differing reasons, mainly no accompaniment with spending cuts. That's great, and I agree with him.

But now, he's completely for the tax cuts, wishing to make them permanent. All while it's obvious that congress will not be restraining spending anytime soon, if at all.

So what changed? Facts haven't. Spending is still out of control, so why be FOR the cuts now all the sudden? No other reason possibly explains it except that tax cuts are the way to the conservatives' hearts, and he needs their votes.

That isn't straight talk. That isn't anything but pussy ass bullshit.

 

[Gunny]

When John Kerry said "I voted for it before the bill before I voted against it", he was talking about a bill that had been amended during the interim.

Did you ever disparage Kerry for that, or use that quote against him?


Wouldn't it have been better to quote the earlier post or posts that were the subject of your response?

Hate to burst your bubble, but no, I did not. The only comment I recall making then was the same one I made in my previous post ... I personally despise the term "flip-flopper" itself, so I can't imagine that I would use it.

I would have had NO problem criticising him nor anyone else for changing a stance on an issue simply to cater to a crowd. That would depend on the stance, and the context in which any statement was made.

I have no problem crticizing the stance itself, if I disagree with it.

However, calling someone a "flip-flopper" because they change their stance on an issue in light of new information and/or a changing situation is playing dirty pool.

Strategically, it's about as foolproof a way to lose a war as any.

 

[Dogger]

Hate to burst your bubble, but no, I did not.

It was a question, not an accusation. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Strategically, it's about as foolproof a way to lose a war as any.

If only Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld understood that. Petraeus gets that, and Gates seems to get it, but they have constraints imposed from above.

 

[Gunny]

But voters as a whole will never get that. It makes for a really easy time for the MSM to do their dirty work on candidates, too. Look what it did to Paul.



I can get behind that. But the problem is, not every change in position is because of a change in facts. I'm willing to bet that more changes in position happen when voter consensus changes, then when facts change. Politicians pander. They pretty much have to in this election environment. And with that comes changes in positions if your base moves away from theirs.

Those are the politicians I hate the most. The ones who have no real position on anything, only whatever is the flavor of the week. It's one of the biggest reasons I'm a Paul supporter. You ALWAYS know where he stands.

It's a lot more complex an issue than the "flip-flop" crowd ever discusses. For instance, if a politician is elected to represent a constituency and he does not hold the same view of the majority of that constituency on an issue, does he vote his own belief? Or does he vote the will of those he is supposed to represent?

Ideally, the representative and constituency are not that far apart on issues, but in reality, our representatives seem to get further and further out of touch with the people. And it seems that 99% of the time, they vote their beliefs instead of the beliefs of their constituents.

If a politcian was to actually come out and say this is what I believe but I am voting this way because it is the will of my constituents, I could accept that as a legitimate explanation.

But I have no faith in those who cannot improvise, adapt and overcome in politics anymore than I would want a closed-minded bot commanding any unit I was in on a battlefield.