Is McCain Senile?
 

McCain is a gaffe machine. Almost daily he is tripping over his own words saying things that are completely wrong. Is he senile, stupid, or blatantly lying?

Examples of this:

Iran is training Al'Queda:

Iraq borders Pakistan:

My new personal favorite, nations don't invade other nations (unless it is the US)

Others:

McCain confuses the Packers and the Steelers (or was he just pandering).
McCain volunteers his wife for a topless beauty contest...
McCain schedules a speech on an oil platform to promote offshore drilling but has to cancel because of a giant oil spill!
McCain's economic adviser says recession is just a figment of our imagination and we are just whining.
McCain refers to Czechoslovakia.
McCain says the sunni awakening happened after the Surge (sorry other way around).
McCain says no to a timetable, Iraq says yes...
McCain misstates the number of economists that support his plan.
McCain says he doesn't really know much about economics (on video) then says I never said that!

Combine this with McCain's numerous flip flops.

I'm sure I could continue for another few pages but I think I made my point

If Obama were to mess up like this he would be eaten alive by the media yet McCain gets passes on these. For example, Obama gives a speech in Germany the media says he is being presumptuous, McCain does his own diplomatic mission to Georgia...not one mention of him being presumptuous.

So what do you think is McCain senile, stupid, or dishonest?

Is there an option for "all of the above"?

And as much as my bias agrees with your bias, I have to admit that I don't see this discussion going well. Staunch McCain supporters will deny the media is giving him a pass and instead say that Obama is getting a pass, and/or claim that Obama flipflops more than McCain. Obama supporters will agree with you.

Unfortunately someone's inability to speak accurately seems to have VERY LITTLE effect on the electorate. I decried Bush's absolutely terrible understanding of English and his inability to report facts accurately in 2000, but to most people it doesn't seem to matter.

He's trying to lie, but he's a bit too far gone to do it as successfully as, say, a Bill Clinton or George H. W. Bush (W. Bush, of course, is simply not intelligent enough to convincingly lie).

It's a shame some people don't have "smart" on their list of presidential attributes. I'm not saying intellect is the end all be all of presidencies, but an oval office with under a 90 IQ is likely to see a lot of problems.

Give the man a break....he graduated 894th out of 899 in his class at the Naval Academy!

Maybe he figures...it worked for GW.

I think he sometimes just doesn't think before he talks--the "bold, free-wheeling, straight-shooting maverick" thing. Worked for him when he was actually campaigning on things he believed, but now his campaign has gone into tack-right pander mode, and what he has to say isn't natural for him anymore, and things get wacky.

His campaign has been saying very strange things lately about "keeping the candidate focused on the campaign's message". VERY strange thing to say. Makes one wonder exactly what we're supposed to be voting for, when we vote McCain.

Other times, I think he just talks out his ass and isn't used to having every utterance scrutinized. He pulled the "Iran training Al Qaida" thing straight out of his ass. It's clear he was making that up as he went along. And the "Iraq/Pakistan border" thing was a bluff--if you watch closely, he's practically daring us to check that fact. It's all over him that he wants us to think he knows something we don't. He wants to come off as informed, so he makes up some information that sounds plausible.

I think if he was seriously senile, it'd be harder for him to string thoughts together. He's not incoherent. He just has CRS syndrome.

Wasn't Reagan senile for most of his last term. Isn't he like Jesus for Republicans?

I think Americans like voting for people who remind them of their grandparents.

All 57 states are safe with Obama :)

Better than Grant... and he was the Supreme Union Commander AND President.

"you forgot ugly, lazy, and disrespect....SHUT-UP BITCH!"

I can't believe you wasted the time to put this together....I find it hard to believe you haven't heard some of the dumb shit Obama has said, but be my guest check it out on this cool thing called goodle or something where you can search stuff like that.

Obama must have early onset Alzheimer's, or probably got like a 200 on his SAT's and graduated 3 in his class of like a million. What an IDIOT!! He needs to be impeached cause if he wins he stole it probably using those hanging chads and butterfly's to fool older people in states that have them.

I almost want this guy to be elected. The future of America is almost not worth another 4 years of this shit.

By the way, anybody else think it's an indicator of the direction the wind's blowing that Obama's name is getting spelled correctly everywhere at long last, and "Mc'Cain" is getting a new apostrophe?

Ding, ding, ding.

Even I don't care that Obama said that, but if people are going to bullshit about McCain then it deserves to be brought into the discussion.

Look at his presidency; bad example :lol:

I've noticed this, too.

Mc'Cain? What the... :lol:

Is the pope catholic?

Is Obama an empty suit?

oh no he didn't! :rolleyes:

Yes.

Ugh! I can't believe that Stephen Harper is looking like the strongest, most competent leader in North America!

I'm fully aware of the gaffes Obama has made also. The difference is Obama's gaffes are talked about for a week on all the news stations that love to follow fox news' lead. McCain's are never mentioned.

Remember when Obama gave a speech that included words from a friend of his? He got accused of plagiarism for weeks. McCain just ripped part of his speech from Wikipedia and the media is mum on it. (Of course the true crime is he used Wikipedia as a reliable source....)

Now Georgia is the first serious crisis since the end of the cold war... i guess 9/11, Iraq 1, Iraq 2, etc were not serious....

The clip does not begin at the start of his comments, nor does it include the remainder of his commentary. It's possible that's all he said, but I firmly believe he understands all of these events in their proper perspective. I also believe it's disingenuous for the media to suggest otherwise. However, the consequences of unchallenged Russian aggression in Eastern Europe could easily eclipse any of those events you mentioned.

I'm not watching the clip, but I'll take a guess that the involvement of Russia was either implied or cut from the clip.

Of course what McCain fails to mention is Georgia was the aggressor and Russia responded to their aggression. I'm not saying Russia was right to do what they did but Georgia is not innocent at all. In fact, the closest example of this happening in the past was when Saddam invaded Kuwait and in response the US invaded Iraq. Anyway it is irrelevant to the fact that he is claiming that Iraq 1 & 2, 9/11, Afganastan, Darfur, Sudan, Kosovo, and many others were not serious.

The media has every right to question McCain's statements on Georgia in light of the fact that his top foreign policy advisor was, until very recently, a paid lobbyist for Georgia:
Just one of the many lobbyists with foreign government contracts in the McCain (the anti-lobbyist candidate) inner circle.

hahaha I was prepared the second thing.

omg! :shakehead:

Georgia was the aggressor? Perhaps like Hitler claiming Poland to be the aggressor in WWII.

Who attacked who first? Georgia attacked SO. Russia responded by liberating SO and then continued into Georgia.
-----Added 15/8/2008 at 08 : 03 : 08-----
From wiki:

2008 South Ossetia war - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The 2008 South Ossetia war began on August 7, 2008, and involves the country of Georgia, the Russian Federation and the breakaway republics of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. The war began after a ceasefire agreement between Georgia and South Ossetia broke down (each side accused the other of breaking the ceasefire), and Georgia sent a large military force into South Ossetia which reached the capital Tskhinvali.

Tell me how is Russia's invasion of Georgia different from America's invasion of Iraq during the first gulf war?

Yeah that's pretty much the way it's unfolded.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7553390.stm

What I can't understand is why Georgia would think Russia would sit back and allow this to happen. Talk about throwing rocks at a hornets nest.

Also there seems to be more then a little irony in the US government making statements like 'it's not alright for one country to be invading another in the 21st century." I had a neighbor from Denmark over for coffee the other morning. Bush made some comment like that and my friend started laughing so hard I thought he was going to fall over.

Between this, the middle east situation(s) and Russia now threatening action in Poland it seems like pretty serious times are afoot.

;) (Just yanking your chain...)

South Ossetia is part of Georgia. Georgia sent Georgian troops into Georgia and they are the aggresser?!?!

BBC NEWS | World | Europe | Country profiles | Regions and territories: South Ossetia

A little more reliable than Wiki.

The problem being Ossetia voted for independence and didn't want to be part of Georgia. Russia supported the Ossetia independence, Georgia... not so much.

The problem, Tully, is that, unlike say Kosovo, everyone in the international community other than Russia thinks S. Ossetia shouldn't be independent. I mean, just look at a map -- it doesn't look like a separate county; it would still be almost completely surrounded by Georgia. Georgia sending troops into S. Ossetia may have been unwise, but it certainly was not an invasion of a sovereign country.

Yeah I know ;) For informal posts its ok but for public speeches, papers, etc don't even think about it ;)

All I'm saying is that Georgia basically fired the first volley here. There's a pretty long history of Ossetia trying to separate from Georgia:

BBC NEWS | Europe | Country profiles | Regions and territories: South Ossetia

As for "just look at a map -- it doesn't look like a separate county" What does a separate country look like? IMO, maps and logic make strange bed fellows. If you just looked at a map you have to wonder why Alaska isn't part of Canada. Or why Hawaii isn't it's own nation (which it was until the US forcefully removed it's royal family.) Heck just look at a map of Europe, how many countries are completely surrounded by other countries? So I'm not sure why looking at a map would help with deciding what area of land belongs to what country.

From everything I've read, as always I could be wrong, it seems the South Ossetia people want to be independent. They voted to be independent. Seems to me what they want should be taken seriously.

Except that they have been their own country for around 18 years now. Which does give them some claim to independence. If we had not invaded Iraq and Saddam would have sent troops into the north to reclaim the Kurdish regions how would the US have reacted? We would have likely invaded and liberated them and the Kurds never were their own country.

Now I'm not saying Russia was right in attacking Georgia but Georgia definitely does not have its hands clean.
-----Added 16/8/2008 at 10 : 41 : 56-----
Here is testimony from a 12 year old American girl who was there:


Pay attention to who she says was the aggressor.

What would we have done? Nothing... just like when he did it the last dozen times.

Oh yeah, and if Russia was really interested in people voting themselves independent they would have no problem with Chechnya gaining their independence.

And voting oneself independent isn't sufficient to be independent. Just ask South Carolina, or Scotland, or Ireland, or the Basques, or Belgium, or Hungary, or any other group which has desired independence, but hasn't gained it just by wanting it. This makes sense. I can' secede from the United States by voting myself out, right? And if my family decided we wanted to form our own country, we couldn't, right? Mere numbers of people can't be why the South Ossetians would have the right to secede.

When should a country be able to divorce itself from another country? I don't know; I've heard it suggested that there has to be some bad behavior on the part of the bigger country (eg, Serbia ethic cleansing Kosovo). This probably isn't the worse suggestion out there. And that's not the case here; Georgia certainly wants to cut down on the massive amount of criminal activity based in South Ossetia, but that's not ethnic cleansing.

Besides, they haven't been their own country for 18 years. As I pointed out above, everyone except for Russia views them as part of Georgia. The only reason they've been more or less autonomous is that there have been Russian troops occupying the region for most of that time, under the fictitious pretense that the South Ossetians are Russian citizens. Certainly the options are not a Georgian South Ossetia or an independant South Ossetia, but a Georgian (that is, free and democratic) or a Russian (that is, authoritarian) South Ossetia.

So by your logic the US is still part of Briton?

This situation is far more complicated then simply voting ones self out of a country. Go back 50 years and this area was part of the USSR, right? So the people of Georgia can vote themselves independent but the folks over in Ossetia cannot?

there seems to be a kind of anxiety at the international level about what constitutes a state, yes? in the sense of who gets to declare themselves one and who does not. if you think about it, the process is pretty arbitrary---mostly a matter of recognition on the part of other states. the ex-yugoslavia experience plays into things at this level---apparently not all bases for state-making are equivalent, and some Declarations are better than others. it seems that in this case the problem at bottom is there was no particular chain of recognitions of south ossetia and nothing else. so the status of the space is (obviously) ambiguous. this is the condition of possibility for everything that's happened around it.

and apparently, there is some ambivalence about the ethnicity=nation=nation-state slide. and there is even more ambivalence in this case because it is not obvious "who" the ossetians "are" in that goofy sense. personally, i think most of this has to do with a gradual erosion of the functional centrality of nation-states over the past 30 years or so--so the basis for the idea of a nation-state is wobbly--but there seems to be no particular agreement even that there is such a problem, much less what might plausibly be done to respond to it, or even if a response is necessary--so you have situations like this.

but if nothing but recognition constitutes the basis for a "legitimate" nation state, then (a) the united states is not still part of england but (b) south ossetia is not anything at all. a province of somewhere.

i sometimes go to a public house that is nowhere--at one end of the parking lot, a town begins--at the opposite end of the parking lot, another begins. it is in a hole. if you go there, it seems that time does not happen. this is just a story i felt like writing down, and now i have written it down and that is good.

What it seems like Rekna and Roachboy are getting it is the idea of recognition. It seems to me that, practically speaking, recognition by other nations is what makes a country independent. So the US isn't part of Britain anymore because nobody thinks of the US as being part of Britain. It seems to make a difference, at least rhetorically, whether a nation had been independent in the past. Georgia used to be an independent nation; South Ossetia, not so much, to the best of my knowledge. There are obvious issues floating around -- the United States, as such, were never independent countries. Israel was once an independent country, but that was a little while back. Serbia, yes; Kosovo, no.

Um... how is everyone ignoring the fact that in order to be an independent nation it must not be under the military control of another country? It's not recognition which gives a country it's status... it's primarily the military's ability to prevent incursions within it's own territory.

Granted, wars can go bad and land get lost. Countries can be partially or completely occupied, this is where international recognitions play a role. However this is backed up by the force of economic or militaristic threats which support otherwise non-independent countries through their rough spot.

The problem here is the pot/kettle factor of Russia. If their intentions were to be taken at face value we are then to question Chechnya. The fact of the matter is this is their assertion of force under the former-Soviet states in order to gain control as before. We saw this assertion in the poisoning of the Ukranian President, we are seeing it now, and we will see it again.

Umm, ok then countries that have no military are not independent? Places like Liechtenstein and Costa Rica would likely disagree with you. Hell, Costa Rica's own constitution prevents them from forming a military.

The problem here, in terms of McCain's response to Russia's action, is the pot/kettle factor:

"In the 21st century, nations don't invade other nations."

He and Bush, who made a similar comment, just dont see how the rest of the world views the US invasion and occupation of the sovereign nation of Iraq.

Or was it a U.N. coalition invasion (lead by U.S. military) followed by a peace keeping operation, all because of continued defiance of exhaustive U.N. resolutions by the Saddam regime? If the U.S. decided to invade Mexico because we said some of their border towns really wanted to be part of the U.S.A. (true or not), and because Mexican forces fired on U.S. forces while occupying Mexican territories, then you would have a more accurate parallel.

Iraq and Afghanistan where not unilateral incursions/invasions. Russia's invasion of Georgia was. The equipment used, troops, and logistics also prove that they had this planned months in advance.

So technically... McCain's statement was correct. And, of course, political nature compels the opposition to spin without the need for accuracy. They all do it and it's expected. We can only marvel at how it will play out.

Otto....you can call the Iraq debacle whatever you want.

By most measures, the majoritiy of Iraqi people (partciularly the relatives of the 100,000+ civilians killled and the 2+ million refugress and displaced persons) and the rest of the world call it a US invasion and occupation.

Why do you think it is that Bush polls so low among the rest of world (even lower than Putin):

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pi...n08_graph1.jpg

World Public Opinion Poll

If one believes that McCain and Medvedev represent a continuation of Bush/Putin, do you think the world image of the US will improve? Or perhaps you dont think it matters what the world thinks of our political leaders.

We attacked Iraq because Bush wanted to. It didn't matter what Saddam did Bush would have went in. Bush may have even ordered a key piece of evidence against Saddam to be forged in order to make his case. We already know he knew it was forged when he presented it as evidence.

I understand why the McCain campaign believes it is to his political advantage to demonstrate his foreign policy “expertise and credentials” with his WW III doomsday pronouncements. After all, he is the warrior candidate.

But his WW III scenario keeps changing. First, it was al Queda in Iraq and the terrorist threat if we “abandon” Iraq, then it was Iran’s nuclear threat, now its Russia’s invasion of the Republic of Georgia.

IMO, characterizing these serious foreign policy issues as potential WW IIIs does not reflect well on his judgment nor does it serve US interests very well in our relations with both allies and adversaries. The US would be better served by a president who is not so bellicose and belligerent.

Whatever happened to “speak softly but carry a big stick” approach to foreign policy and diplomacy?

dc and Rekna... I'm not disputing or agreeing with your viewpoints on how things turned out in Iraq. I'm only pointing out that the official invasion of Iraq was executed as an official U.N. initiative, not a unilateral act of aggression by George Bush... unlike the unofficial unilateral invasion of Georgia by Russia.

If we are analyzing John McCain's senility based on the accuracy of the statement:
...then his statement was technically accurate based on the factual perspective that military action in Iraq and Afghanistan was a multilateral punitive action through the U.N.

Just because we don't like something, our opinions, popularity polls, unprosecuted assumptions and accusations do not change why the U.N. coalition acted against (violating U.N. member) Iraq. Until the official record is changed and Bush convicted for war-crimes, framing McCain's statement as inaccurate or senile is nothing less than propagandized political spin. If McCain implied otherwise, he would be criticized for not understanding the facts (and therefore incompetent), charged with spinning, or accused of being senile. It's how the game is played.
-----Added 18/8/2008 at 11 : 25 : 00-----
Good point. Iraq is a perfect example of exhaustive world diplomacy, world diplomacy failing, then following through with the "big stick". Remember, there are two parts to that quote.

If you want to be technical about it then be technical.

Technically the US is a nation.
Technically the US with/without the consent of others invaded Iraq and Afghanistan.
Technically it is the 21st century.

Therefore the statement "In the 21st century, nations do not invade other nations" is technically false.

Otto...the intent of my posts was not to rehash the legitimacy or effectiveness of the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

My point.....the US not well-served by characterizing every foreign policy "crisis" as the next WW III.

We have had a fear monger (when speaking to US citizens ) and a bully (when speaking to the rest of the world) in the WH for the last eight years and his actions have alienated allies and, to some extent, generated empathy for our adverseries.

IMO, a different approach to foreign policy is long-overdue and I dont think McCain offers that approach.

OK...

• Technically the US is a nation. Correct
• Technically the US with/without the consent of others invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. Incorrect. The U.S. as an independent nation did not perform an independent act of aggression by invading Afghanistan or Iraq. This was a coalition of nations prosecuting a violating fellow member of the U.N. according to the laws and resulting resolutions of the U.N. While countries are indeed members of the U.N., the U.N. exists as a group of nation members that agree to cooperate under international law. The U.S.A. did not invade Iraq, the international organization U.N. invaded Iraq
• Technically it is the 21st century.Correct
• Therefore the statement "In the 21st century, nations do not invade other nations" is technically false.In the literal interpretation of that single quote taken out of context, you are partially correct. The implication in the context of McCain's overall commentary was that civilized countries in the 21st century do not act unilaterally as Russia acted against Georgia.

So are we still arguing McCain's senility?
-----Added 18/8/2008 at 12 : 38 : 56-----
dc... agreed, who wants to rehash the U.N. military actions in the mid-east and the subsequent peacekeeping initiative all over again. :)

While I don't agree with your assessment of fear mongering and bullying in the WH, the specter of WWIII is always over-kill (by repubs or dems). I was focusing on the legitimacy of the specific senility charge against McCain.

Otto....one last point on the UN and Iraq:

The "US-led coalition" forces are not UN peacekeeping forces by any official measure or standard. They are occupation forces and over 90% are now US forces.

Putting that aside, I dont believe McCain is senile...I do believe he has a very black/white approach to foreign policy, much like GWB. There is no nuance, no subtilty...just more of the same..

Rattle the sabre.....shoot first....talk later OR how NOT to make friends and NOT influence people.

I respect your opinions dc. Though historically we've locked horns, it's always a challenge and an interesting exchange with you. You are sincere and consistant.

US + Allies = nationS emphasis on the S....

Anyway the comment is still very hypocritical. How about McCain saying you aren't rich until you make 5 million a year?

I understand how this situation has proved to be an inconvenient truth for your argument.

OK, let's take a look at what the transcript says:
So he really doesn't think it should be $5 million, it was a rhetorical comment with intended sarcasm. He called it correctly that his comment would be distorted.

To take one of out Dennis Miller's book.... Calling Obama an empty suit is an insult to hangers.

I'm sure the same could have been said about GW and indeed Obama has made quite a few slips ups along the way too.
To err is human, afterall.

Mc'Cain(?) and Obama are both blithering idiots and the two worst possible candidates. I'm not sure how these guys even became politicians, they'd never get elected to town council here. I think "all hat and no cattle" is the term.

Maybe compared to Bush they look like better choices and it's hard to argue that. Miss Teen South Carolina is more coherent.

I'm in a foreign country and not a US voter so it's a moot point but Cynthia McKinney is the only candidate i'd want to vote for. Since she won't likely be on the ballott and the machines will be rigged to steal any of her votes maybe she can run against Harper in Canada so there's at least one honest politician on the continent.

United Nations Security Council and the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And your point would be ...?

Hmmmm Just looking at the OP, I find it weird that McCain can be attacked for his faux pas, yet, when Obama stated there were 57 states and so on, it's "you are racist, he was tired he made a mistake, etc".

So my question is for those that will defend Obama gaffes, why are you so willing to call McCain out for his? Instead of attacking his age and showing a prejudice against someone in his 70's?

I find what McCain said in the OP quite disturbing and it is, to me, as bothersome as having a nominee say
we have 57 states and so on.

I just see the hypocrisy and it is quite laughable.

Well it seemed pretty clear to me Obama meant to say he had been to 47 states. This is a miss-speak and Obama would admit what he said was a mistake. However many of these things McCain has said he either sticks by them saying they are true, or admits they are false and then repeats them again later. (Saying Iran is training Al'Queda many times even after being corrected).

Please read this article: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/57states.asp

See, I find that attitude very bizarre. Obama obviously misspoke. Tired, whatever. It's patently obvious that he made a mistake, but ultimately, the number of states that comes out of his mouth is meaningless.

McCain "misspeaks" about the conflict that's happening on the Iraq/Pakistan boarder, and it's alarming because it shines a light on his lack of understanding of the world situation. Anyone who's as familiar as he claims to be with the middle east situation couldn't make such a mistake. He's this great big expert, and yet the things that come out of his mouth are nonsense.

The two "misspeakings" are of VASTLY different magnitudes. I don't see how you can even compare them. One is a clear flub that doesn't actually get anybody hurt, the other casts doubt on the fundamental platform the candidate is running on. I think that stretching the 57 thing to be equivalent is only possible in the context of a pre-existing position against Obama.

Some people would say this is not much of a change. Or even a change for the worse.




"Breathalyzer?' "Inhalator?"

The press, and many here, would have a field day if W had done this.

You're just part of the neo-con hate machine. Why do you have to be such a hater? ;)

all these are obviously television-effects. anything---a slip of the tongue to a gross misstatement of fact---repeated enough times for us the willing recipients of this sort of "data" becomes significant. sadly, information about actual policies does not seem to fit into the 10 second format, and so you know far less about where either of the candidates actually stands and what either proposes to do if elected than you know about the string of fuck ups each generates.

when this appalling sporting event of a primary process started seemingly at the end of the ice age, i briefly thought that there were important matters at stake in this election and that because there were important matters at stake maybe maybe a focus on substantial questions and positions would follow from that.

i dont see what mc-cain has to offer as a candidate and cannot image how it is possible that after 8 years of the bush administration that the republicans have any chance at all of getting another term in control of the presidency. and i would think that conservatives would be kinda pissy about the way the adverts that his campaign is running treats them--as little pavlov experiments, able to be mobilized with the push of some buttons (taxes bad---manly man good)....

but i also don't think we're in the election phase yet--i think we're in a strange kind of fantasy land which, if you step out of it for a minute, is obviously by television and for television with the main purpose of keeping you focussed for the delivery of vital advertisements which will enable you to determine what other commodities you might want in order to help you best express your all important individuality as an american.


yet it continues.

Very yes.

But I'm not convinced it's entirely a matter of the limbo-land timing. Do you really think things will change substantially after the conventions? I'm hoping at LEAST the scheduled debates will contain some sort of substantive contrasting of positions. I've pretty much given up on having any quality coverage of the campaign from the media.

Now McCain doesn't know how many houses he owns....

What?

McCain was asked how many homes he had, he stuttered and said he doesn't remember and his staff will have to get back to them.

There is audio of it at this link.
McCain unsure how many houses he owns - Jonathan Martin and Mike Allen - Politico.com

I'm still looking for the video.

Are they homes or houses? Does it really matter? Is it a matter of condominiums as rental or equity investments? Are any of their homes being used by family members?

Obama could not recall any racist or anti-American rhetoric coming from his pastor and church for over 20 years. He must be senile.

This is really a stretch by the Obama camp. Perhaps Barry should get his pal Tony (convicted felon) Resko to help his homeless half brother out with a new home like he did for him.

in the ongoing struggle to push the requisite buttons and rouse the corpse that is contemporary conservatism, the mc-cain campaign is starting to pull out all the stops. this advert positions obama as the antichrist.



at first i thought it had to be a hoax--but it it's a campaign ad from the mc-cain camp--but i'd like to think it's a really good hoax---because thinking that maintains something of my perky and optimistic outlook when it comes to my fellow americans.

but it seems that the state of affairs that we move through is of such a level of degeneracy that a site a "rebuttal"---no no, crazy people, the bible does not say the anti-christ will look like barak obama--is out there:

snopes.com: Is Barack Obama the Anti-Christ?

there are more links in this article

Barack Obama, l'Antchrist selon les rpublicains

which (**gasp**) is in french (the weblinks are not) and which laughs at all this.

it kinda boggles the mind.

I like the McCain response to Obama's speech about his houses. Does Obama really want to go this route? The whole Rezko thing can hurt Obama a lot.

I also find it funny that on the Saddleback Forum McCain jokingly said he thought 5 million would mean one was rich and continued to joke that it would be taken out of context. Guess what? Obama said that McCain thought $5 mil was rich. Obama continues to make a fool out of himself.

Obama needs to refocus his campaign on positive issues rather than resort to attacking. His whole platform was that he was different and wasn't the typical politician. Well if he decides to go down the road and use attack ads, he has completely betrayed his advertised values.

Dont you think that should apply to both candidates...and their surrogates?

Why single out Obama? The attacks against him have been far more scurrilous by any measure.

The anti-christ "card" has been played throughout history against a number of presidents and presidential candidates. I believe the ad is really lampooning Obama "fever"... the bizarre cult-like swooning or messianic idolatry over Obama... the "anointed one".

otto...the bizarre cult-like swooning or messianic idolatry is part of the myth spread by conservative....just as the myths questioning his patriotism or religion.

I understand that the conservatives have helped inflate this image, but I've seen the swooning in action... and it is bizarre (IMO of course).

IMO....posters here (and I include myself on occasion) have sunk to the level of the less informed general public and the most trite and hackneyed partisans hacks.

Perhaps that explains the lack of lustre in TFP politics lately....somehow, the issues and facts have gotten tossed aside along the way.

Sad to see.

personally, what i think is making the mc-cain people sweat is that among the effects of 8 long miderable years of george w bush et al is the possibility that conservative identity politics will no longer work. what the anti-christ ad is about works in a straight line from the advert they were running during the olympics---an advert that didn't make a whole lot of sense logically if you paid attention to the irritating voice-over rather than focusing on the bright letters that effectively said YOU CONSERVATIVES: YOU ARE AFRIAD OF THESE THINGS...i dont see mc-cain as having any particular affinity with the conservative far-right politics or the demographic that was backed into supporting it---backed into because what seems to have held the coalition together was commonalities in things to be afraid of, to reject---and if the above is right, then the strategy so far is not "vote for mc-cain" but rather "be fafraid of barack obama"

which is strange given how much conservative political talk goes in for manly man postures on questions of foreign policy.

well, maybe it's not so strange. not if you're a bit cynical about things.

It's not strange at all.

I think the McCain campaign has a democratic mole working in their editing room - and the really funny part is they think he's doing a fantastic job.

That ad is hilarious! I'm going to watch it again.

Well yes and no. McCain never sold himself as some type of "new" politics. You sort of expected attack campaigning out of McCain, as well as Hillary and so forth.

Obama portrays himself as a unifier, but is doing exactly what McCain and Hillary has done - attack.

I agree the Republicans have attacked Obama more so than Obama has attacked McCain, but it works doesn't it? Look at the latest Zogby polls or Rasmussen polls. Obama has lost a lot of ground since the McCain campaign started attacking Obama in full force.

To say one candidate can go negative and the other one can't is pretty silly. If republicans want to complain when Obama goes negative that he is not the "new candidate" won't they be admitting that their candidate is the same old politician of old?
-----Added 21/8/2008 at 08 : 06 : 27-----
Tell me what Obama did wrong involving Rezko? Also while were talking about corruption maybe we should bring up Keating 5.

The truth of the matter is both Rezko and Keating 5 are too complex for it to resonate with the public. It is a sad state of affairs but the only thing that resonates with the voting public are tag lines that can be said in 5 words or less. If you have to explain anything the majority of the public won't care.

Perhaps. All I'm saying is, Obama's whole selling point was that he wasn't a typical politician, and it's turning out that he is. McCain? Of course he's a typical politician. He's been in the Senate for 20 years.

Let me make myself clear. I have no problem with Obama attacking McCain. I do have a problem with him suggesting he wouldn't do that. McCain made no such suggestions.

You're right. Rezko is way too complicated for the general public, and I think only people really into politics really understand it.

Now the way I understand it with Rezko is (and don't quote me on the correct order of this, I'm doing this off the top of my head)...
#1 Rezko gave Obama a deal on his house $300K below market value.
#2 Obama turned to Rezko for political expediency
#3 Obama fought for a lot of funding to get Rezko contracts on housing projects in Chicago.
#4 Rezko goes to jail for fraud and bribery.

For someone who follows politics a lot, I can't say I totally understand all the details.

I read. I rarely post. Most posts seem to come directly from a talking points memo put out by either the DNC or the RNC.

#1 Rezko did not give Obama a deal. Obama paid the owner (no relation to Rezko) 1.65 million, which was 300,000 below the asking price (not the value) (~18%). However, the house was on the market for months and Obama's offer was the highest one. The seller has said that Obama's paid a fair price. The seller also sold an adjacent vacant lot to Rezko and the seller made it a condition of both bids that they close on the same day. Later Obama purchased a strip of the vacant land from Rezko for $104,500 which was $60,000 more then the assessed value. That is definitely not a deal.

#2 Rezko donated a total of about $4,000 to his campaign and threw a single fund raiser for im.

#3 No evidence of this has ever surfaced nor of any favors done by Obama for Rezko

#4 this it true, but the bribery and fraud was related to other politicians not Obama.

From what I can tell the Rezko/Obama relation is really this: They owned land next to each other, Obama overpaid for a small strip of land, They both served on the board of a non-profit together, Rezko donated to Obama's campaigns a few times and held a single fund raiser for him.

Even when all the complexities are explained there still doesn't appear to be anything wrong it.

If you say so...



... as long as the perception is out there, it's going to have legs.



what the heck... while we're at it.



It's a sad truth... but true.

I'm sorry, otto, but posting videos that contain the phrase "I'm X and I approve this message" and calling that ANY sort of truth, sad or otherwise, is evidence of delusion well beyond what this forum can help you with.

The REAL sad truth is, people who have swallowed the kool-aid that thoroughly are beyond recovery.

Well many of the campaign ads *are* based on truths, but many times don't tell the whole truth. For instance, the latest Obama ad pokes fun at McCain's multiple houses. It basically tries to vilify McCain for being wealthy. Ummm isn't Obama fairly well off himself? Half the story....

Well there are certainly kool aid drinkers on both sides. In that 'rock star' video, the video producer obviously found some. It certainly isn't representative of most Obama supporters, but there certainly is no scarcity of them. Trust me I know a few.
-----Added 22/8/2008 at 01 : 43 : 35-----
$60k more than assessed value? Sounds a little fishy to me there.

As for the property Rezko bought, it is purported that he paid the asking price. Nothing wrong with that there, but combined with Obama's lot, seems a little shady.

Obama even regrets buying the property: Obama on Rezko deal: It was a mistake :: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES :: Politics

Rezko's fundraiser raised almost $250k for Obama.

While Obama turning to Rezko for political expediency certain is not illegal in any terms. However, associating with a felon is coming back to bite him in the butt. He's been lucky not too much has been made of this yet, but don't bet the house that it stays that way.

Perhaps it's human nature, but there is a saying that goes "you are judged by the company you keep." With Obama befriending Rezko, Reverend Wright, Bill Ayers, Raila Odinga and Father Michael Pfleger, you have to wonder if there are some skeletons in the closet.


Taken from a NY Post article:
BARACK'S FAVORS FOR CORRUPT CRONY - New York Post

-In October 1998, Obama wrote city and state officials, urging them to give Rezko $14 million to build an apartment complex outside of Obama's state Senate district. The Chicago Sun-Times noted last year that Obama's request included $855,000 in "development fees" for Rezko and for another developer, Allison Davis, who happened to be Obama's old law-firm boss. Obama's spokesman said it was just a coincidence that the state senator wrote letters to obtain millions of dollars for his two longtime friends.

-In 2001, Obama cosponsored a bill allowing developers to sell state tax credits to others and pocket half of the proceeds.

- In 2002 and 2004, he was chief cosponsor of a bill to authorize a rent-subsidy fund giving "grants . . . directly to developers" of low-income housing. Seventy percent of the money was earmarked for the Chicago area.

-Obama cosponsored the Illinois Housing Initiative Act of 2003, which required the governor to develop a plan for more low-income housing and "provide[d] for funding for housing construction and rehabilitation and supportive services."

-In 2003, Obama voted for the Affordable Housing Planning and Appeal Act, which required Illinois municipalities to make 10 percent of their housing units "affordable" (by definition, this included subsidized housing). This forced 46 communities just outside of Chicago to create more than 7,000 new "affordable" units - a huge boost in demand for area developers. The bill also provided loopholes for developers to circumvent local ordinances and regulations.

These and the other Obama-backed bills helped make millionaires of Rezko and other slum developers at taxpayers' expense. The developers - including his former law boss and an adviser to his current campaign - reciprocated, together giving and raising hundreds of thousands of dollars for Obama's campaigns.

Well I quoted all the NY Post stuff that addressed this in the previous section. The question is now what was the motivation? There lies everything. If Obama had in fact been motivated to help Rezko make millions, there is a serious crime here. If not, well, it's shady, but legal. The problem is proving the intent. Obama is not going to come out and say it, and I highly doubt there is a good paper trail either way.

Either way, however, the only one that is hurt is Obama. Just the perception he might have done something illegal (and by associating with a felon) will hurt him dearly in the eyes of voters.

Umm...his presidency is often considered the biggest flop ever.....

Would McCain be considered senile or incompetent if he couldn't say at what point human rights begins (in reference to Obama's "above my pay-grade" quote)?

This just continues to spiral... and we're only getting started. Yes, we've got the "old coot" vs. the "empty suit". I say let them beat the crap out of each other.

I would love to see Obama pick Biden as his VP and McCain Romney. They can go at each other's throats. That would make for some good debating.

At least entertaining at some level.
-----Added 22/8/2008 at 04 : 29 : 37-----
Yes "they" have and are.