McCain Meltdown

topic posted Wed, July 23, 2008 - 10:14 AM by  Nolen
July 22, 2008 7:00
McCain Meltdown
Posted by Joe Klein

www.time-blog.com/swampland...tdown.html

John McCain said this today in Rochester, New Hampshire:

"This is a clear choice that the American people have. I had the courage and the judgment to say I would rather lose a political campaign than lose a war. It seems to me that Obama would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign."

This is the ninth presidential campaign I've covered. I can't remember a more scurrilous statement by a major party candidate. It smacks of desperation. It renews questions about whether McCain has the right temperament for the presidency. How sad.

Scurrility Update: Readers should note that I said that I can't remember a more scurrilous statement by a major party candidate. Smart politicians leave the scurrilous stuff to their aides; in fact, a McCain spokesman expressed these words almost exactly on July 14. There is a reason why politicians who want to be President don't say these sort of things: It isn't presidential. A President exists in the straitjacket of literality. His words mean something. So John McCain has to literally believe that Barack Obama would "rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign." I can't imagine that he does. He popped off, out of frustration.

The reality is that neither Barack Obama nor Nouri al-Maliki nor most anybody else believes that the Iraq war can be "lost" at this point. The reality is that no matter who is elected President, we are looking at a residual U.S. force of 30-50,000 by 2011 (a year ahead of the previous schedule). The reality is that McCain should be proud that he helped salvage a disastrous situation by pushing the counterinsurgency plan. It's something to run on. But, at this point, McCain must sense that it's not a winning hand. Obama, the poker player, has drawn to an inside straight: the Iraqis favor his plan over McCain's long-term bases. That must be galling. But it's no excuse to pop off the way McCain did. It was, shockingly, unpresidential.
posted by:
Nolen
Los Angeles
  • Unsu...
     

    Re: McCain Meltdown

    Wed, July 23, 2008 - 10:53 AM
    Obama goofs on gas demand
    Omigosh, omigosh, omigosh (Obama assails ...):

    Barack Obama didn't back down yesterday in his opposition to a so-called gas tax holiday this summer, becoming more vocal in calling it political pandering and slamming John McCain and Hillary Clinton for proposing it.

    He told voters in Winston-Salem, N.C., that suspending the 18.4-cents-a-gallon federal gas tax between Memorial Day and Labor Day would save them only about $25 to $30. Some economists, he said, believe the proposal could backfire and actually raise prices by increasing demand. "We don't know that the oil companies will actually pass on the savings," he added.

    Wrong, wrong, wrong: A lower gas price causes quantity demanded to increase as consumers move down the demand curve. The only things that cause gas demand to change are changes in income, prices of substitutes and complements, tastes and preferences and expectations (e.g., fill your gas tank in Louisville, Ky before Derby Week). I demand a retraction.
    • Re: McCain Meltdown

      Wed, July 23, 2008 - 11:09 AM
      Jonny,

      Wrong. A gas tax holiday is very simply a political ploy and would not make a substantial difference in the pocket books of Americans. We're talking $.18 per gallon. On a 15 gallon fill up that comes out to a savings of $2.70 per tank. That is not a substantive solution to the problem of expensive oil for the American consumers.

      Your efforts to portray Obama negatively are failing miserably. McCain has been making mistakes at an alarming rate and is showing that he has no command of details. Simply stated, he is not suited to be president, he is not equipped to handle the demand of the office and the responsibilities that come with it.
      • Unsu...
         

        Re: McCain Meltdown

        Wed, July 23, 2008 - 11:11 AM
        Obama's gaffes start to pile up
        One stump line sounds similar to John Edwards'

        March 28, 2007Recommend (18)

        BY LYNN SWEET Sun-Times Columnist
        WASHINGTON -- Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign, 46 days old on Tuesday, has run into some speed bumps, created because of a series of missteps magnified because he is under microscopic scrutiny.
        It's too early to say whether the gaffes slow Obama's momentum -- or if they become barricades, extracting a more significant price for the Illinois Democrat's White House bid. They are getting noticed.

        Consider the items that have been accumulating since Obama announced on Feb. 10:

        • Marking the anniversary of the March 1965 "Bloody Sunday" in Selma, Ala., Obama, speaking at a church, said his parents got together "because of what happened in Selma." Obama was born in 1961.

        • Obama told Larry King on CNN -- asked about that anti-Hillary Rodham Clinton YouTube ad, a doctored version of a spot created for Apple computers -- "We don't have the technical capacity to create something like that."

        Obama did not know what he was talking about. Any professional media consultant can manipulate images on video. Turns out the creator -- unmasked last week as a political operative who worked for a firm overseeing the technical side of Obama's Web site -- made it at home on a Mac.

        • Obama, asked if homosexuality was immoral, in the wake of comments by Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Gen. Peter Pace, sidestepped the question. After pressure from gay groups, Obama issued a statement stating he did not agree with Pace "that homosexuality is immoral."


        Cynicism is like terrorism?
        • One of Obama's stump lines is that the biggest obstacle he fights is not any of his rivals, it is cynicism. He used a variation of it during a reception he hosted at a conference here sponsored by AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Displaying a tin ear, Obama said that one of the enemies is not "just terrorists" or "just Hezbollah" or "just Hamas" -- "it's also cynicism."
        • The Tribune dug this up: Obama, in his memoir, Dreams of My Father, writes of a story in Life magazine that influenced him -- about a black man trying to bleach his skin white. No such article could be found in Life or Ebony.


        Insider or outsider?
        • Another Obama stump line -- he said it again Tuesday morning to the Communications Workers of America here -- is that "I've been long enough in Washington to know that Washington needs to change." He is running against Washington yet his campaign is populated with political professionals who are Washington insiders.
        • Obama's embrace of some rhetoric used by rival John Edwards is getting attention. Edwards, in a 2003 speech made for his first presidential run said, "I've spent enough time in Washington to know how much we need to change Washington."

        Bill Burton, an Obama spokesman, said in reaction to the Obama stumbles: "If there are people looking for a candidate running to be the darling of the Washington insider crowd, this campaign is not for them. We are encouraged by the growing, unflinching support of Americans who believe we can transform our country by changing our politics."



        TRY THESE ON FOR SIZE...............

        • Re: McCain Meltdown

          Wed, July 23, 2008 - 12:06 PM
          hey jonny stay on topic. This thread's about McCain not Obama.


          I know it's hard for you to stay focused, what with that lawsuit against your company and your coke and hooker habit.........
  • Unsu...
     

    Re: McCain Meltdown

    Wed, July 23, 2008 - 11:07 AM
    just a few for starters...........
    • Re: McCain Meltdown

      Wed, July 23, 2008 - 11:10 AM
      Jonny,

      You're relying on Rush Limbaugh and a John McCain blog??? That is truly laughable.
      • Unsu...
         

        Re: McCain Meltdown

        Wed, July 23, 2008 - 11:19 AM
        ALMOST AS LAUGHABLE AS cnn'S LEFT LEANING NEWS " REPORTING"
        • Re: McCain Meltdown

          Wed, July 23, 2008 - 11:25 AM
          Jonny,

          So you are agreeing with me. Instead of posting valid view points, you simply mirror what you are critical of. You behave in the manner in which you think is laughable. You are resorting to what you know is not reliable or worthy of true consideration. Way to go Einstein. Instead of just saying that someone's reporting is biased, you show that you are equally useless.
        • Re: McCain Meltdown

          Wed, July 23, 2008 - 12:13 PM
          calling CNN "left leaning" is one of the most hysterical comments I've heard from dreggy yet.



          It's like calling Faux News "fair and balanced"

          You haven't quoted Bill-O The Clown or Coultergeist yet, so I am assuming those are to come.
  • Re: McCain Meltdown

    Wed, July 23, 2008 - 11:36 AM
    I don't think it is a meltdown, but simply McCain stating what he believes. He has always been this way
    • Re: McCain Meltdown

      Wed, July 23, 2008 - 12:07 PM
      << I don't think it is a meltdown, but simply McCain stating what he believes. He has always been this way>>

      Between this and his gas price commercial McCain seems to be drifting to the swift boat rhetoric. It's a campaign and McCain has to dial up the rhetoric to get attention during Obama's trip but I agree with Klein this is beyond the pale.
      • Re: McCain Meltdown

        Wed, July 23, 2008 - 12:12 PM
        It is because McCain is getting desperate.
        • Re: McCain Meltdown

          Wed, July 23, 2008 - 12:41 PM
          having Maliki endorse Obama's Iraq plans really must be driving McCain and Co crazy!
          • Re: McCain Meltdown

            Wed, July 23, 2008 - 12:46 PM
            Only 2 people are left who don't support Maliki and Obama's withdrawl plan:

            Bush and McCain.

            Bush and his "Time Horizon".. do you know the funny thing about horizons? you never get to them. They are always off in the distance no matter how long you strive to get there.

            -troy
            • Re: McCain Meltdown

              Wed, July 23, 2008 - 12:52 PM
              <<Bush and his "Time Horizon".. do you know the funny thing about horizons? you never get to them. They are always off in the distance no matter how long you strive to get there. >>



              Bingo.
          • Re: McCain Meltdown

            Wed, July 23, 2008 - 12:50 PM
            Nouri al-Maliki is about the biggest slime ball in Iraq
            • Re: McCain Meltdown

              Wed, July 23, 2008 - 1:43 PM
              <<Nouri al-Maliki is about the biggest slime ball in Iraq

              Of course you are going to say that, he is not saying what you, your candidate McCain, and Bush want him to say. That slimeball is creating a real coalition between Sunnis and Shia, something you said that could not be done.
              • Re: McCain Meltdown

                Wed, July 23, 2008 - 2:08 PM
                "Al-Maliki was a member of the de-Baathification committee from 2003-2004 charged with purging the country's government and civil service of Saddam supporters. The committee drew criticism for removing thousands of workers who had joined the party in order to climb up the career ladder. In April 2004, Paul Bremer, the top U.S. official in Iraq at the time, moved to return teachers and military veterans to their old jobs. "

                www.pbs.org/newshour/ind...rs/index.html


                As I said, the man is a slime ball


                "That slimeball is creating a real coalition between Sunnis and Shia, something you said that could not be done. "


                No, I said it couldn't be done without our troops being present
                • Re: McCain Meltdown

                  Wed, July 23, 2008 - 2:14 PM
                  That was US policy, not Malaki policy.

                  And regardless of if he is or is not a slimeball, you are simply trying to discredit the President of Iraq because the ideas he has for his own country fall in line with Obama. So rather than address that, you want to divert the discussion as to Malaki as a person rather than political realities on the ground.

                  <<No, I said it couldn't be done without our troops being present

                  Except that the surge and the troops had little to do with it. The Awakening movement in Iraq is homegrown, and done in spite of the Occupation inspired attacks. It was done in part through politics, in part through negotiations, in part with US $$.... It was not done by US troops, it was accomplished in part by the US PAYING Iraqi groups to do the job the US troops WERE doing. Thus the success was the result of Iraqis taking over the job of the occupiers to keep the peace... Something we all know is important being that the insurgency is inspired in LARGE part by the occupation. Take US troops out of the picture in these neighborhoods, empower the Iraqi people, and you see the success we have. In other words, reducing the US footprint in these neighbiorhoods got RESULTS.
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.

                    Re: McCain Meltdown

                    Wed, July 23, 2008 - 2:27 PM
                    jeff, it amazes me how the McCain camp is trying to spin this story about Obama, Maliki and a timetable for withdrawal.
                    • Re: McCain Meltdown

                      Wed, July 23, 2008 - 2:32 PM
                      what, by pointing out that Maliki is a slime ball? Brent, please notice that I have said nothing about Obama's plans here
                      • Re: McCain Meltdown

                        Wed, July 23, 2008 - 2:36 PM
                        well, he may be a slimeball but he's getting the job done.

                        Perhaps you remember another darling of the Whitehouse by the name of Saddam Hussein? maliki looks like a saint in comparison. The fact is the Iraqi government wants a timetable for withdrawal & Obama wants one.

                        It must be getting pretty lonely in the Bush/McSame camp
                      • Re: McCain Meltdown

                        Wed, July 23, 2008 - 2:46 PM
                        <<what, by pointing out that Maliki is a slime ball?

                        Yes, Bbecause it was in direct reference to Malaki endorsing Obama's plan for withdrawing.

                        <<<Brent, please notice that I have said nothing about Obama's plans here

                        Of course, that is how you work.... We talk about Obama's plans and how those plans are supported by the Iraqis and the Iraqi govt. Rather than speaking about Obama and Malakis ideas, you denigrate the Iraqi president that agrees with Obama. Much in the same way that you avoid openly praising McCain but are disproportionately critical of Obama. That way if anyone says anaything about McCain, you can just say "we are talking about Obama not McCain".
                        • Re: McCain Meltdown

                          Wed, July 23, 2008 - 3:00 PM
                          "Yes, Bbecause it was in direct reference to Malaki endorsing Obama's plan for withdrawing. "


                          No, it is just my general view of the guy, and I have stated this on numerous occasions


                          "Of course, that is how you work.... We talk about Obama's plans and how those plans are supported by the Iraqis and the Iraqi govt. Rather than speaking about Obama and Malakis ideas, you denigrate the Iraqi president that agrees with Obama."

                          Because the guy is a complete slimeball


                          " Much in the same way that you avoid openly praising McCain but are disproportionately critical of Obama. "



                          Last I checked, Obama was the one being designated the next messiah



                          • Re: McCain Meltdown

                            Wed, July 23, 2008 - 3:15 PM
                            <<Last I checked, Obama was the one being designated the next messiah>>

                            I wonder if you'd be so willing to shift the argument if Obama said:

                            "McCain is willing to lose social security for our seniors rather than lose a campaign"

                            or

                            "McCain is willing to lose his opposition to torture rather than lose a campaign"

                            or

                            "McCain is willing to lose our manufacturing base rather than lose a campaign"
                            • Re: McCain Meltdown

                              Wed, July 23, 2008 - 3:32 PM
                              I definitely agree with you on torture, but the other two I think are more complex issues


                              PS not to mention, that statement was just highlighting the fact that there are not many pro-Mccain threads on this board
                              • Re: McCain Meltdown

                                Thu, July 24, 2008 - 11:37 AM
                                <<PS not to mention, that statement was just highlighting the fact that there are not many pro-Mccain threads on this board

                                How about posting some? How about actually being a proponent for your candidate rather tha PRIMARILY engaginging in attacking his opponent? I apologize if you took the label Attack Dog as a personal attack, but you have done nothing but go after Obama while doing nothing positive to advocate for your candidate......and that is the very definition of Attack Dog.
                                • Re: McCain Meltdown

                                  Thu, July 24, 2008 - 11:44 AM
                                  "How about posting some? How about actually being a proponent for your candidate rather tha PRIMARILY engaginging in attacking his opponent?"


                                  Oh, the irony of saying that in this thread~!!!
                                  • Re: McCain Meltdown

                                    Thu, July 24, 2008 - 12:13 PM
                                    <<Oh, the irony of saying that in this thread~!!!

                                    I don't care if this is a McCain attack thread or not, it does not change the fact that you have not been a proponent for your candidate, you have only engaged in tearing down his opponent. Use me as an example, I am both critical of McCain while touting the policies of my candidate. You engage in nothing but negative campaigning. Why?
                          • Re: McCain Meltdown

                            Wed, July 23, 2008 - 8:14 PM
                            <<No, it is just my general view of the guy

                            And you accuse me redirecting? LOL....... Regardless, you brought it up in DIRECT reference to his views matching Obama's.

                            <<Last I checked, Obama was the one being designated the next messiah

                            See, more attempts at denigration. I rest my case.
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.

                    Re: McCain Meltdown

                    Wed, July 23, 2008 - 2:53 PM
                    "That was US policy, not Malaki policy.

                    And regardless of if he is or is not a slimeball, you are simply trying to discredit the President of Iraq because the ideas he has for his own country fall in line with Obama. So rather than address that, you want to divert the discussion as to Malaki as a person rather than political realities on the ground."

                    Jeff, I am sorry that you find it hard to accept that people might disagree with you


                    "Except that the surge and the troops had little to do with it. The Awakening movement in Iraq is homegrown, and done in spite of the Occupation inspired attacks. It was done in part through politics, in part through negotiations, in part with US $$.... It was not done by US troops, it was accomplished in part by the US PAYING Iraqi groups to do the job the US troops WERE doing. Thus the success was the result of Iraqis taking over the job of the occupiers to keep the peace... Something we all know is important being that the insurgency is inspired in LARGE part by the occupation. Take US troops out of the picture in these neighborhoods, empower the Iraqi people, and you see the success we have. In other words, reducing the US footprint in these neighbiorhoods got RESULTS."


                    Actually, I agree with you on most of these points, but still feel that the US troops acted as a stabilizer while this was all being organized
                    • Re: McCain Meltdown

                      Wed, July 23, 2008 - 8:24 PM
                      <<Jeff, I am sorry that you find it hard to accept that people might disagree with you

                      Illogical, I never indicated nor hinted I have a problem with people disagreeing with me. Do you have some evidence that Debaathification was becasue of Malaki and not Bremer? Lets get to the details here, I am tired of broad generalities.

                      <<Actually, I agree with you on most of these points, but still feel that the US troops acted as a stabilizer while this was all being organized

                      I have considered that possibility. But I see it this way, the US occupation has been the PRIMARY reasoning behind the surge. Rather than preventing violence, Occupation has been the INSPIRATION FOR VIOLENCE. and Violence continued unabated ALL of these years and the death toll has been high. The only thing that changed to reduce the violence was the replacement of US troops with Iraqi groups. The only thing that changed was the polticial climate.

                      You have to remember that Iraqis ARE a nationalistic peoples and do not take kindly to outside influence let alone an OCCUPATION. Think about if the US was being occupied by an outside force.....and that force fired our military and disbanded our political parties.....putting 100s of tho