PDA

View Full Version : The old politics is alive and well - "they'd better take steps to innoculate him".



ink
08-01-2008, 03:39 PM
Obama's conundrum ...


McCain has zeroed in on the one kernel of truth that can support a web of lies. The Obama people can say they're a transformative campaign, but at some point they have to deal with reality, however distasteful. The old politics is alive and well. If Obama acts like he's above it, he fuels the fire. If he answers in kind, he risks damaging his brand as a new kind of politician. It's the same box he was in during the primaries with Hillary Clinton. Saying this is a new era, that it's not your grandfather's electorate, that the issues of war and energy independence and economic stress trump the old-guard tactic of character destruction may be true--but why take the chance? "There are lots of ways these things become viral, and this is the Ebola virus of 2008," warns Matt Bennett, cofounder of Third Way, a centrist Democratic group. "I think his guys are brilliant; they'd better take steps to inoculate him."

Source: Newsweek (http://www.newsweek.com/id/150243)

blenderboy5
08-01-2008, 11:04 PM
That's why I always laugh at Obama supporters naive enough to believe in him and honestly think he'll do everything he says he will.

He's a politician and has to deal with facts just like everyone else. He wasn't flip flopping when he kinda changed his statements on Iraq. He was facing reality.

ink
08-01-2008, 11:09 PM
^That's not at all what the article is about. It's about the reality of playing dirty politics like McCain has resorted to. What they're saying is that he has a conundrum on his hands: does he stay on message and positive, or does he fight the slimy comments with slimy comments. If he stoops down to Karl Rove disciple, Steve Schmidt's level, he will give up the moral ground. If he doesn't defend himself, he will get swift-boated. That's what the inoculation comment is about. The Republican election machine is about as ruthless and dishonest as they come. Question: if McCain is willing to lie in his ads, will he also continue the habit of lying if he were to get elected? Because there really isn't anyone who claims that his ads are the truth.


By not reacting to every groundless attack, Obama could be leading us into the new politics he promised. Or he could just be a easier target to hit.

gcoll
08-01-2008, 11:33 PM
I love this kind of stuff.

Portraying Mccain's campaign as dirty, and Obama as trying to stay above the fray...but getting dragged into it by Mccain.

BS.

ink
08-01-2008, 11:35 PM
I love this kind of stuff.

Portraying Mccain's campaign as dirty, and Obama as trying to stay above the fray...but getting dragged into it by Mccain.

BS.

Provide examples of Obama sliming his opposition with clear untruths like McCain has done.

ink
08-01-2008, 11:44 PM
That controversial new ad for John McCain called ''Celeb,'' uses images of Britney Spears and Paris Hilton to jab at Democrat Barack Obama for being just too much of a celebrity -- and is being credited to the saavy Steve Schmidt, John McCain's chief strategist.

But didn't Schmidt -- whose spot asks whether voters can trust such a star to govern -- manage that successful effort to re-elect the world's biggest celebrity, the action hero governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger?

Source: SFGate (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=14&entry_id=28687)

Bit ironic ... lol.

gcoll
08-01-2008, 11:51 PM
Provide examples of Obama sliming his opposition with clear untruths like McCain has done.

Obama hasn't really "slimed" Mccain. Mccain hasn't really "slimed Obama" apart from that "he went to the gym...instead of visiting the troops" which was a bit off base, but still....we never really got a satisfactory answer on why Obama canceled that part of his trip. But the celebrity ad got more attention, which I found odd.

I thought that the whole "They're going to try and scare you away from me because I'm black" thing was a little off base. That definitely rubbed me the wrong way.

So...I don't really know where I'm going with this....my main problem with Obama is that he keeps saying "I'm gonna stick to the issues" but he doesn't bring up the issues all that much other than "I am for change...and Mccain has no new ideas" type stuff.

ink
08-02-2008, 12:12 AM
Mccain hasn't really "slimed Obama" ...

Questioning patriotism is about as slimy as it gets. :nod:

gcoll
08-02-2008, 12:27 AM
Questioning patriotism is about as slimy as it gets. :nod:

And "stop questioning my patriotism" is a pretty common dodge nowadays, when anyone says anything about you.

Or a good old "he's not supporting the troops!!!" which is usually followed by "hey. Don't question my patriotism"

ink
08-02-2008, 12:42 AM
And "stop questioning my patriotism" is a pretty common dodge nowadays, when anyone says anything about you.

Or a good old "he's not supporting the troops!!!" which is usually followed by "hey. Don't question my patriotism"

The Republicans have milked it at least since Bush #1 beat Dukakis in 1988.

So there's good reason that it gets used as a defense. Because US elections have inexplicably been won and lost by the stupid tradition of out-patrioting each other. Let's face it, there hasn't been a presidential candidate in history who lacked for patriotism. And yet it's still made into an issue. :pity: Of course, now that I've said "never in history", ari1013 will come up with an example from the early 1900's. ;)

gcoll
08-02-2008, 12:45 AM
The Republicans have milked it at least since Bush #1 beat Dukakis in 1988.

The Democrats helped. Especially Dukakis.

But...yeah. The perception of the democrats is weakness on national defense. The Republicans use that to their advantage.

The same way the dems use the perception of Republican weakness on economy. Remember "It's the economy stupid"?


Let's face it, there hasn't been a presidential candidate in history who lacked for patriotism. Any yet it's still made into an issue

Because "he lacks patriotism" is a dumbed down message, that you can use to rally morons around you.

I believe there is a saying that says "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public". I assume nobody has ever lost an election by underestimating the intelligence of the public either.


ari will come up with an example from the early 1900's.
Not 1900's....but Aaron Burr may not have been too much of a patriot. In fact, he was actually kind of crazy. Tried to form his own country I think, at one point.

But I'm pretty sure Aaron Burr loved himself, a whole lot more than his country. The same may be said of a lot of politicians....but Aaron Burr took it to extremes.

But in order to get at that, you'd have to actually define what "patriot" means.

ink
08-02-2008, 12:47 AM
The Democrats helped. Especially Dukakis.

But...yeah. The perception of the democrats is weakness on national defense. The Republicans use that to their advantage.

The same way the dems use the perception of Republican weakness on economy. Remember "It's the economy stupid"?

Yeah but there's nothing slimy about that.

blenderboy5
08-02-2008, 12:53 AM
eh, Dukakis was kind of ******** anyway

gcoll
08-02-2008, 12:58 AM
Yeah but there's nothing slimy about that.

What about the numerous implications by democrats, that Republicans hate poor people? Is that slimy?

ari1013
08-02-2008, 01:10 AM
The Republicans have milked it at least since Bush #1 beat Dukakis in 1988.

So there's good reason that it gets used as a defense. Because US elections have inexplicably been won and lost by the stupid tradition of out-patrioting each other. Let's face it, there hasn't been a presidential candidate in history who lacked for patriotism. And yet it's still made into an issue. :pity: Of course, now that I've said "never in history", ari1013 will come up with an example from the early 1900's. ;)
Sorry you got me on that one ;)

ari1013
08-02-2008, 01:12 AM
eh, Dukakis was kind of ******** anyway
He was a lousy candidate. Just like Bob Dole, John Kerry, and John McCain. Some people just can't seem to get their act together. Nothing against their previous accomplishments, but they couldn't/can't handle a national race.

ari1013
08-02-2008, 01:13 AM
What about the numerous implications by democrats, that Republicans hate poor people? Is that slimy?
Pretty much. Of course it doesn't seem to bother them too much. They haven't really tried that hard to reverse that viewpoint.

gcoll
08-02-2008, 01:21 AM
Pretty much. Of course it doesn't seem to bother them too much. They haven't really tried that hard to reverse that viewpoint.

Well when "hating the poor" is "refusal to support expanding government handouts" then there's not really much they can do.

They don't do too badly with blue class working people though. So that's something.

blenderboy5
08-02-2008, 12:33 PM
Republicans don't hate poor people. They just don't talk down to poor people, give them welfare programs that keep them poor, and demand their vote every November.

ink
08-02-2008, 01:36 PM
Republicans don't hate poor people. They just don't talk down to poor people, give them welfare programs that keep them poor, and demand their vote every November.

I doubt "poor people" consider it "talking down to them". And the old cliche about the welfare programs is so hackneyed BB. Come on. If there's one thing Obama does have some expertise in, it's dealing with poverty issues (http://www.ontheissues.org/Economic/Barack_Obama_Welfare_+_Poverty.htm) in other ways than merely handing out money.

b1e9a8r5s
08-02-2008, 06:05 PM
Provide examples of Obama sliming his opposition with clear untruths like McCain has done.

He just has his suragets do it. Wesley Clark, ring a bell?

ink
08-02-2008, 06:19 PM
He just has his surrogates do it. Wesley Clark, ring a bell?

Well, first of all, that happened in March. Second, rightly or wrongly, he was endorsing Hillary Clinton, NOT OBAMA, over McCain. You've taken those comments right out of context. And thirdly, what Clark said is not untrue:


Everybody admires John McCain's service as a fighter pilot, his courage as a prisoner of war. There's no issue there. He's a great man and an honorable man. But having served as a fighter pilot — and I know my experience as a company commander in Vietnam — that doesn’t prepare you to be commander-in-chief in terms of dealing with the national strategic issues that are involved. It may give you a feeling for what the troops are going through in the process, but it doesn't give you the experience first hand of the national strategic issues.

Source: National Review (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NjA3NTQ5ZDQ1ZmUwYWM5MWU0YTA2ZDkzZTdmYzA3YzY=)

The exact same points were made in this forum a week or two ago, and there wasn't much disagreement. As honorable as McCain's service was (and it genuinely was), being a POW and a fighter pilot does not mean you have national security experience. So, there's nothing AT ALL wrong with those statements.

arkanian215
08-02-2008, 06:36 PM
I love this kind of stuff.

Portraying Mccain's campaign as dirty, and Obama as trying to stay above the fray...but getting dragged into it by Mccain.

BS.

well clearly mccains campaign does look dirty. he runs an aggressive attack obama campaign and theres no denying it. upon first inspection people tend to think that this guy is angry all the time, too serious and cold, unless youre a vet. given the circumstances, there's no other campaign that mccain can run. but as obama claimed that he was above the mudslinging and political jibberish, he drags himself into a corner. in order to defend himself, he cannot always say "that's not what i meant" or "youre misleading". he has to attack back with some mud of his own. and that not makes him a hypocrite.
this is very similar to people saying that they're not racist and that they treat all people equally and all that nonsense.

Randy West
08-02-2008, 07:02 PM
I am not running for president

I am going to stay right here and do what the good people of Illinois elected me to do

PHX-SOXFAN
08-02-2008, 08:08 PM
Obama hasn't really "slimed" Mccain. Mccain hasn't really "slimed Obama" apart from that "he went to the gym...instead of visiting the troops" which was a bit off base, but still....we never really got a satisfactory answer on why Obama canceled that part of his trip. But the celebrity ad got more attention, which I found odd.

I thought that the whole "They're going to try and scare you away from me because I'm black" thing was a little off base. That definitely rubbed me the wrong way.

So...I don't really know where I'm going with this....my main problem with Obama is that he keeps saying "I'm gonna stick to the issues" but he doesn't bring up the issues all that much other than "I am for change...and Mccain has no new ideas" type stuff.

hey hannity, show me where he said "they are going to scare you away because I'm black". he never once said those words. the right wing spin artists put that interpretation on it, but that is not what he said. I find what he said to be more of a counter against the muslim smears. so that shouldn't "rub you the wrong way", unless your listening to the hannity interpretation, because obama's words were nothing of what you said they were:D.

mccain is running the in the mud campaign that hillary was, same thing. don't act like it's different. it's exactly what mccain said he wouldn't do. obama has not gone down that road one bit, and you can't provide an example to prove otherwise:D

PHX-SOXFAN
08-02-2008, 08:10 PM
Well when "hating the poor" is "refusal to support expanding government handouts" then there's not really much they can do.

They don't do too badly with blue class working people though. So that's something.

actually hating the poor is insulting them with tax breaks for the richest 1% despite repeated examples of how it never "trickles down", every one of those taxbreaks to the rich is a slap in the face of the poor, and every educated economist alive

Randy West
08-02-2008, 08:17 PM
It misrepresents what Obama would really be doing anyway as far as taxes are concerned

He wants certain tax cuts to not be renewed and make different ones helping a different spectrum of people for a change

I feel like it boils down to who's side are you on..............those making xxx,xxx and up, or those making xxx,xxx and below

PHX-SOXFAN
08-02-2008, 08:25 PM
It misrepresents what Obama would really be doing anyway as far as taxes are concerned

He wants certain tax cuts to not be renewed and make different ones helping a different spectrum of people for a change

I feel like it boils down to who's side are you on..............those making xxx,xxx and up, or those making xxx,xxx and below

that's pretty accurate. except those on the below side also need to be informed that breaks for those on the above side will never hit their pockets in any trickle down bs that has been disproved time and time again

b1e9a8r5s
08-02-2008, 08:27 PM
It misrepresents what Obama would really be doing anyway as far as taxes are concerned

He wants certain tax cuts to not be renewed and make different ones helping a different spectrum of people for a change

I feel like it boils down to who's side are you on..............those making xxx,xxx and up, or those making xxx,xxx and below

Well for the record, I don't make anywhere near those tax breaks, and I'm for McCain.

Randy West
08-02-2008, 08:42 PM
Well for the record, I don't make anywhere near those tax breaks, and I'm for McCain.

well that is fine as well, I am sure there are more out there that feel that way


judging buy the way Obama has out paced McCains donations shows that there are probably just as many folks on the upside of that bracket for Obama

ari1013
08-02-2008, 11:57 PM
well that is fine as well, I am sure there are more out there that feel that way


judging buy the way Obama has out paced McCains donations shows that there are probably just as many folks on the upside of that bracket for Obama
Right. Most people aren't voting just for tax cuts.

b1e9a8r5s
08-03-2008, 03:47 AM
Right. Most people aren't voting just for tax cuts.

Agreed. I can't find the article, but despite how Obama likes to talk about all the small contributions that have funded his campaign, his biggest donors are companies like Citigroup and Smith Barney just like any other canidate.

ari1013
08-03-2008, 09:05 AM
Agreed. I can't find the article, but despite how Obama likes to talk about all the small contributions that have funded his campaign, his biggest donors are companies like Citigroup and Smith Barney just like any other canidate.
The point, however, is that he's gotten more individual contributions than any other candidate in history. Something like 2 million different people have donated to his campaign. And the bulk of people who have donated, have given him under $100. So it shows that he's getting people involved who clearly haven't ever really been involved in politics before.

Of course he's getting max money from big time players. I don't think he denies that. He does make a point of saying that he won't take anything from any lobby firm.

ari1013
08-03-2008, 10:27 AM
hey hannity, show me where he said "they are going to scare you away because I'm black". he never once said those words. the right wing spin artists put that interpretation on it, but that is not what he said. I find what he said to be more of a counter against the muslim smears. so that shouldn't "rub you the wrong way", unless your listening to the hannity interpretation, because obama's words were nothing of what you said they were:D.

mccain is running the in the mud campaign that hillary was, same thing. don't act like it's different. it's exactly what mccain said he wouldn't do. obama has not gone down that road one bit, and you can't provide an example to prove otherwise:D
They're misconstruing Obama striking back at this ad: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPARec32KMI

It's pretty typical of them. Attack the guy and then make fun of him as he lashes back.

ink
08-03-2008, 11:19 AM
They're misconstruing Obama striking back at this ad: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPARec32KMI

It's pretty typical of them. Attack the guy and then make fun of him as he lashes back.

I'm thinking the overall lack of substance is going to have to change in this campaign. Both parties run the risk of turning voters off if they don't.

b1e9a8r5s
08-03-2008, 02:24 PM
I'm thinking the overall lack of substance is going to have to change in this campaign. Both parties run the risk of turning voters off if they don't.

I think Obama is making a mistake (tactically) by refusing to talk more about the issues. Everything in the political environment favors him (bush, economy, etc.) and it just seems like he's not going to take any chances by getting into "debates" about policy. I think it's hurting him, and is the reason McCain is only a few point back in the national polls.

ink
08-03-2008, 02:29 PM
I think Obama is making a mistake (tactically) by refusing to talk more about the issues. Everything in the political environment favors him (bush, economy, etc.) and it just seems like he's not going to take any chances by getting into "debates" about policy. I think it's hurting him, and is the reason McCain is only a few point back in the national polls.

Both campaigns are playing fairly coy right now. To be fair, Obama is talking about issues, but the Republicans are ignoring that. I also think it serves them best not to talk about specifics because as you suggest everything in the political environment is toxic for them right now. So it's easier to mock Obama, his popularity and his campaign slogan.

b1e9a8r5s
08-03-2008, 03:08 PM
Both campaigns are playing fairly coy right now. To be fair, Obama is talking about issues, but the Republicans are ignoring that. I also think it serves them best not to talk about specifics because as you suggest everything in the political environment is toxic for them right now. So it's easier to mock Obama, his popularity and his campaign slogan.

I think Obama is doing McCain a favor by staying away from substances, and also not agreeing to the joint appearances that McCain had proposed. I think it plays into the conception that he's an elitist and also to the fears people have about him being an unknown.

ari1013
08-03-2008, 06:10 PM
I think Obama is doing McCain a favor by staying away from substances, and also not agreeing to the joint appearances that McCain had proposed. I think it plays into the conception that he's an elitist and also to the fears people have about him being an unknown.
How so? How does not appearing in a joint-town-hall -- something that hasn't been done in 150 years paint him as an elitist? He's been campaigning all across the country in roughly 10 different town halls each week. He talks about the issues and shows people how he is the candidate that's in touch with what they're going through. And then there's McCain who's content with making 4 speeches a week, one other appearance, then taking off the weekend and running attack ads on TV.

People are beginning to view McCain as a liar. And that's a win for Obama because it detracts from McCain's reputation as a maverick. Meanwhile Obama gets to stay above the fray while building up a huge money lead. Come next month he's going to be able to unload that cash with a stream of TV ads that should give him the push he needs. Meanwhile, McCain's on pace to run out of cash before the Olympics.

DenButsu
08-03-2008, 09:40 PM
I think Obama is doing McCain a favor by staying away from substances

Well, hopefully they're both staying away from substances.

(j/k, sorry I couldn't resist that one - :p )



But let's look at what McCain is really talking about:

Obama/Messiah/Brittney/Paris/celebrity

That is the one, singular, solitary message he and his camp have been drumming for the past week/10 days or so.

That's substance?!?!? :eyebrow:

Sorry, but no.



Meanwhile, what Obama is talking about - in the few spare chances he's had between defending himself from McCain's senseless, baseless, slimy attacks - is the real issues, but that's completely drowned out in the drone of the media as the networks lap up the McCain spin on Obama hook, line, and sinker. Yep, that same media that just loooooooovvvvvvves Obama.

b1e9a8r5s
08-03-2008, 09:56 PM
How so? How does not appearing in a joint-town-hall -- something that hasn't been done in 150 years paint him as an elitist? He's been campaigning all across the country in roughly 10 different town halls each week. He talks about the issues and shows people how he is the candidate that's in touch with what they're going through. And then there's McCain who's content with making 4 speeches a week, one other appearance, then taking off the weekend and running attack ads on TV.

People are beginning to view McCain as a liar. And that's a win for Obama because it detracts from McCain's reputation as a maverick. Meanwhile Obama gets to stay above the fray while building up a huge money lead. Come next month he's going to be able to unload that cash with a stream of TV ads that should give him the push he needs. Meanwhile, McCain's on pace to run out of cash before the Olympics.

Because Obama is the unknown in this election. The onus is on him to define himself and what he stands for. He has all ready gone back on many issues from Public Financing, Gun Control, FISA, and now drilling to name a few. I think the trend, if you look at the polls, is that McCain is ticking up slightly as he's been tied or down one in the Gallup and Rasmuessen daily tracking polls all week.

DenButsu
08-03-2008, 10:18 PM
Given that he's changed his position on nearly every issue - major or minor - he has a position on, and in most cases multiple times, McCain is just as much of an unknown as Obama.

ari1013
08-03-2008, 10:26 PM
Because Obama is the unknown in this election. The onus is on him to define himself and what he stands for. He has all ready gone back on many issues from Public Financing, Gun Control, FISA, and now drilling to name a few. I think the trend, if you look at the polls, is that McCain is ticking up slightly as he's been tied or down one in the Gallup and Rasmuessen daily tracking polls all week.
That didn't answer my question at all.

How does that paint him as an "elitist?"

Is it because he wears $520 Italian designer shoes? Is it because he owns 6 vacation homes? Is it because his wife just helped push through a deal that gave her a little over $1 million in stock revenue while leading to thousands of layoffs in Saint Louis without giving it a second thought? Is it because he lets his family run up $500,000 monthly credit card debts?

Oh wait, that's John McCain...

ink
08-03-2008, 10:31 PM
Given that he's changed his position on nearly every issue - major or minor - he has a position on, and in most cases multiple times, McCain is just as much of an unknown as Obama.

And especially because he has ditched the voice-of-conscience maverick role he held in the Republican party and has slipped effortlessly into GW Bush election mode ... we don't know at all what he stands for anymore. He's gone from being a credible voice in a struggling party to just another voice in a party that will do or say anything to hold onto power.

And that brings this thread full circle back to OLD POLITICS ... exactly the kind of politics McCain insists on using ... despite his "progressive" reputation within the Republican party. Obama and his handlers have a challenge on their hands. Old politics - dirty politics - works or else no one would employ the tactics. What will Obama's strategic answer be?

gcoll
08-04-2008, 12:59 AM
People are beginning to view McCain as a liar
What do you base that on?


That didn't answer my question at all.

How does that paint him as an "elitist?"

Is it because he wears $520 Italian designer shoes? Is it because he owns 6 vacation homes? Is it because his wife just helped push through a deal that gave her a little over $1 million in stock revenue while leading to thousands of layoffs in Saint Louis without giving it a second thought? Is it because he lets his family run up $500,000 monthly credit card debts?

Oh wait, that's John McCain...

I saw that punch line coming.


What will Obama's strategic answer be?
To what exactly?

To the "he didn't visit soldiers" thing.....give a reason why you canceled the trip that holds water. He hasn't really done that.

To the "celebrity/moses" stuff....there's really nothing he can do about that. He plays into the "moses" stuff so well with some of the dopey things he's said.

He can always accept some town hall appearances with Jon Mccain. If he sticks to the issues in those...and Mccain is left with "You didn't visit soldiers" type stuff....it will look bad on Mccain. But there's a reason that Obama hasn't agreed to do that type of thing, and it's because he's scared. That's the only reason I can think of.

DenButsu
08-04-2008, 01:15 AM
He can always accept some town hall appearances with Jon Mccain.

I think that's the last thing he should do.

And I mean that from a purely strategic standpoint, not in terms of who would actually come out better at the end of a town hall (I think the odds do favor McCain, but then again he's been a total gaffe machine so I wouldn't consider it a lock).

As I understand it (and I may not understand it all that well), one basic tenet of running an effective campaign is that you define and dictate your own terms: Your schedule, your priorities, your agenda, your issues. You don't let your opponent do that for you. Of course, no campaigns, including winning campaigns, do this 100% effectively. The candidates can influence but not control the news cycles, they obviously can't prevent their opponents from running attack ads or trying to re-shift the focus of the campaign to less favorable issues, etc. But given the difficulty of not only maintaining the ground you do gain, but also advancing onwards from there, what you absolutely cannot do is give your opponent any freebies. They will exploit them and use them against you.

For example, do you think if Obama conceded to McCain one or two town hall debates that the McCain camp would actually acknowledge any positive virtue of his having done that? Hell no! They'd use that to attack him for being a flip-flopper ("oh, so NOW that he's feeling some pressure he'll change his mind and agree to a town hall"), they'd bash him for not doing more of them ("is Obama so afraid of discussing the issues with the American people that he'll only do it once?"), they'd point to it as an example of poor leadership ("if Obama doesn't even know when and where he wants to talk about the issues, how can we expect him to lead us?"), and they'd drum up this "celebrity" bull**** even more ("Obama wants you to think that he doesn't believe he's better than you, but he'll only get off his celebrity pedestal when it's politically convenient for him").


At this point Obama has absolutely nothing to gain by agreeing to town halls, and a whole lot to lose. I'll be pretty shocked if they concede that.

ink
08-04-2008, 01:23 AM
The town hall issue is laughable. I really have to say that. Completely ridiculous. It is another manufactured issue. There is nothing REAL about either town halls or debates. They are completely manipulated events. Why don't people understand the artificiality???? I find it really bizarre that somehow people have been convinced that somehow a townhall is more "meaningful" or "truthful". :pity:

gcoll
08-04-2008, 01:25 AM
I think that's the last thing he should do.

And I mean that from a purely strategic standpoint, not in terms of who would actually come out better at the end of a town hall (I think the odds do favor McCain, but then again he's been a total gaffe machine so I wouldn't consider it a lock).

I can definitely see your point here.

But. It's all about perception. And I think Mccain can milk the fact that Obama refuses to accept the offer of town hall meetings.


For example, do you think if Obama conceded to McCain one or two town hall debates that the McCain camp would actually acknowledge any positive virtue of his having done that? Hell no!
I'm not sure.


They'd use that to attack him for being a flip-flopper
Yeah. That's a real possibility.


At this point Obama has absolutely nothing to gain by agreeing to town halls, and a whole lot to lose. I'll be pretty shocked if they concede that.
I think Obama has quite a bit to lose by NOT agreeing to at least some of the proposed town halls that Mccain has suggested.

I think it plays right into the "candidacy built on smoke, mirrors, and teleprompters" that I think may hurt Obama in the long run.

Though it may all be forgotten by the time the debates roll around.

What it makes me think of Obama, is that he's scared to confront Mccain on the issues. And from what I read from a lot of posters here...is that Mccain is the one scared of the issues. Then why is Obama hesitant to get Mccain in a platform, where they can talk about the issues face to face on live television?

I can view this from a strategic standpoint...but as an American citizen, I'd like to see this type of thing happen. I'd like both candidates to be center stage...and I'd like them each to field difficult political questions, that they may not have been prepped on. The debates have become a mockery.

The blinking lights, the pre-screened questions...it's not good. I'd like a tougher venue. I think town halls have a chance to be a bit tougher.

gcoll
08-04-2008, 01:30 AM
The town hall issue is laughable. I really have to say that. Completely ridiculous. It is another manufactured issue. There is nothing REAL about either town halls or debates. They are completely manipulated events. Why don't people understand the artificiality???? I find it really bizarre that somehow people have been convinced that somehow a townhall is more "meaningful" or "truthful". :pity:

If done right, town halls can be pretty good. But I'd want a much more combative atmosphere than either the Mccain campaign, or Obama campaign would allow.

I basically want each candidate grilled. And I'd like to see the candidates argue face to face, more than 3 times. I don't like the way political campaigns are run, in a sort of "he said she said" type of thing. I'd like to see more "face to face" type stuff between the candidates.

It shouldn't be "Mccain...in a new ad said.." it should be "Mccain said to Obama"

ink
08-04-2008, 01:30 AM
I think town halls have a chance to be a bit tougher.

Why? Do you think people just randomly show up at these events? That they're not screened? Or planted? Seriously. You are not going to hear what a candidate really thinks no matter what the venue. It is all very carefully scripted and managed, and it has been for a long time.

What I have a hard time with is the fixation on town halls. This is a McCain trumped up issue isn't it?

gcoll
08-04-2008, 01:33 AM
Why? Do you think people just randomly show up at these events? That they're not screened? Or planted? Seriously.

No. I know that they are.

But still. Both candidates are face to face, talking about the issues. And it would be more than the 3 debates, which I think would be a good thing.

ink
08-04-2008, 01:45 AM
No. I know that they are.

But still. Both candidates are face to face, talking about the issues. And it would be more than the 3 debates, which I think would be a good thing.

Both parties have strategists who work to carefully control their candidate's message ... at all times. In a town hall, the theater of the event is such that people are given the illusion of two men talking face to face. In reality, they have been coached for all contingencies just like they would be for a debate. What you will find out is how well each candidate responds to that staged situation. Seems to me George W did pretty well in town halls didn't he?

This is another McCain manufactured issue.

OnWisconsin2007
08-04-2008, 01:53 AM
When I think of John McCain, I see him as some rich, deceitful Republican party puppet that will sell his soul to special interests. Whenever I see his damn campaign commercials they remind me of Bush's to the point they're sickening. It's so funny how the Republican party sells their souls to Big Oil, allowing them to make all time profits, and then turn around and blame Obama for their doing. It's so genius yet so repugnant. The American sheep-le can hopefully see through this. Christ, when I see billboards with planes flying into the WTC and messages about how it's going to happen again with Obama, it makes me sick to my stomach. I used to respect McCain, but now I only see him as John McSame.

gcoll
08-04-2008, 04:47 AM
Both parties have strategists who work to carefully control their candidate's message ... at all times. In a town hall, the theater of the event is such that people are given the illusion of two men talking face to face. In reality, they have been coached for all contingencies just like they would be for a debate. What you will find out is how well each candidate responds to that staged situation. Seems to me George W did pretty well in town halls didn't he?

This is another McCain manufactured issue.
Do you advocate getting rid of the debates as well?

About it being a Mccain-invented issue. By definition, yes it would be. But do you think he intended for Obama to decline? I mean....from what he has said, he proposed it because it was an idea Barry Goldwater had, to fly around together with JFK, and have joint events. Whether you believe that or not, I guess is up to you...but are you sure Mccain isn't being sincere on this issue?

Ari proposed that it may be due to the lack of money that Mccain has compared to Obama, which actually makes sense. But I dunno....Mccain has spoken of his admiration of Goldwater on other issues....I mean, I'm sure Mccain has political reasons for doing so. But I think that 10 co-events + the 3 debates, is better than just the 3 debates...no matter how pre-packaged they are.


The American sheep-le can hopefully see through this
How do you know you aren't one of these "sheep-le"??

DenButsu
08-04-2008, 05:00 AM
are you sure Mccain isn't being sincere on this issue?

The more deeply negative his campaign gets, the more I'm inclined to doubt his sincerity if he claims that anything campaign-related he's doing isn't purely motivated out of a self-serving interest.

ari1013
08-04-2008, 08:52 AM
What do you base that on?



On the fact that the media is finally calling him out on it. After six months of apologising for his gaffes, mistakes, and lies, they're finally calling it for what it is, complete BS.

On May 18, 2008 right before McCain and Obama began making ads against one another, McCain polled at 67% on the question of "Is he honest and trustworthy?"

The time before that (Nov-07) he polled at 57% so there had definitely been an upwards trend as more Republicans began to see that he wasn't as crazy as Talk Radio was making him out to be (imagine that!).

I'm going to have to go out on a limb here and say that number's going to be coming down a lot the next time that question gets polled.

ari1013
08-04-2008, 08:56 AM
If done right, town halls can be pretty good. But I'd want a much more combative atmosphere than either the Mccain campaign, or Obama campaign would allow.

I basically want each candidate grilled. And I'd like to see the candidates argue face to face, more than 3 times. I don't like the way political campaigns are run, in a sort of "he said she said" type of thing. I'd like to see more "face to face" type stuff between the candidates.

It shouldn't be "Mccain...in a new ad said.." it should be "Mccain said to Obama"
I agree. If we could have that, it would definitely be good for all of the voters.

But as Denbutsu said, Obama's going to get grilled even before it happens by the GOP spin machine. He's really better off not engaging McCain at all at this point -- or continuing to issue his own challenges like the one from a month ago, "I challenge John McCain and George Bush to a debate over the economy any where any time." Let's see that happen.

b1e9a8r5s
08-04-2008, 11:07 AM
I just want to ask something here; since itís obvious the majority of you are for Obama. In regards to the "new kind of politics" that he's proposing or advocating, how do you reconcile that to his "shifts" in positions? Telling the people in Pennsylvania and Michigan that he's anti NAFTA and then after securing the nomination saying that NAFTA is a good thing. Or speaking to a Pro-Israel lobby and speaking of an undivided Jerusalem and then the next day backing off that. Or the shifts on FISA and the possibility of more drilling (both of which I agree with btw). I just want to hear how that fits in with his "new brand of politics".

My opinion is that deep down, despite what he says, he's still "just a politician", allthough a very skilled one, I must admit.

ink
08-04-2008, 11:50 AM
I just want to ask something here; since it’s obvious the majority of you are for Obama. In regards to the "new kind of politics" that he's proposing or advocating, how do you reconcile that to his "shifts" in positions? Telling the people in Pennsylvania and Michigan that he's anti NAFTA and then after securing the nomination saying that NAFTA is a good thing. Or speaking to a Pro-Israel lobby and speaking of an undivided Jerusalem and then the next day backing off that. Or the shifts on FISA and the possibility of more drilling (both of which I agree with btw). I just want to hear how that fits in with his "new brand of politics".

My opinion is that deep down, despite what he says, he's still "just a politician", allthough a very skilled one, I must admit.

It's been noted in the media that McCain has shifted positions on 31 different occasions:


Keith Olbermann of MSNBC cited 31 major instances of McCain changing his positions to now conform to conservative Republican thought--from immigration to allowing CIA torture to the Bush tax breaks for the rich. The list also included gay marriage (for it, now against it), allowing rape and incest exceptions when banning abortion (now, he wants no exceptions), warrantless wiretaps (wanted president to have warrant, no longer), and holding detainees without evidence (against, now for).

Source: startribune.com (http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/26189764.html?location_refer=Commentary)

You may automatically dismiss anything from MSNBC but if his reversals happened, they happened. This isn't editorializing. He has flip-flopped because he is now being managed by the party he used to be critical of. Talk about hypocritical. What does he stand for anymore? Isn't the once independent-minded media darling just doing whatever he needs to in order to win votes? ;)

ink
08-04-2008, 12:27 PM
The more deeply negative his campaign gets, the more I'm inclined to doubt his sincerity if he claims that anything campaign-related he's doing isn't purely motivated out of a self-serving interest.

I agree. And he will take every opportunity he can to try to make issues of things that don't really have that much substance. Here's an interesting link (http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=bbcuqfaroe4&feature=user) (posted by OnWisconsin) from a town hall. The person asks McCain a very pointed question about his "respectful campaign" but gets NO REAL ANSWER from him. He just blusters something like "we believe in what we're doing". The quality of his answer is definitely lower than it would be in a debate, for example. He is intentionally vague and political in his response, not candid and honest at all. Here's the text of what he said in his non-answer:


Well, first of all, let me say that there are differences and we are drawing those differences. And I've said earlier I admire his campaign. But what we are talking about here is substance and not style. And what we're talkin' about is who has an agenda for the future of America. Campaigns are tough but I'm proud of the campaign we have run, I'm proud of the issues we're trying to address with the American people. So, all I can say is that we're proud of that commercial ... we think Americans need to know that I believe that we should base this campaign on what we can do for Americans here at home and how we can make America safe and prosperous and that's the theme of our campaign.

What politician wouldn't say something like that? It's just party bafflegab, poorly communicated. There's no substance to his answer, there's no insight. He's basically bumbling through his ad slogans. It's one thing for him to claim that he's the one of substance, but then he has to deliver. This is weak.

In answer to gcoll's question about debates, I would say that it's a non-issue to distinguish between the two kinds of STAGED events as McCain is trying to get his fans to do. That was my point. Of course they should debate. At least then someone will be on the other side to challenge his vague and often incorrect statements. In the youtube clip I posted here, you can see how the woman never gets a chance to rebut him. The partisan audience just cheers after he answers. It's a rally.

I completely doubt McCain's sincerity. This guy used to be well known as a straight talker. Those days are over.

b1e9a8r5s
08-04-2008, 12:49 PM
It's been noted in the media that McCain has shifted positions on 31 different occasions:



Source: startribune.com (http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/26189764.html?location_refer=Commentary)

You may automatically dismiss anything from MSNBC but if his reversals happened, they happened. This isn't editorializing. He has flip-flopped because he is now being managed by the party he used to be critical of. Talk about hypocritical. What does he stand for anymore? Isn't the once independent-minded media darling just doing whatever he needs to in order to win votes? ;)

I didn't ask you anything about McCain. I was asking if you really believe that Obama is a "new politician", and if so, how does his changes on positions fit with that. I wasn't trying to bait you into anything, just trying to understand if you or any of the other Obama supporters believe the "new politician" claim. If your for him because he's the "lessor of two evils" in your opinion, then that's fine, but just say that.

ink
08-04-2008, 12:59 PM
I didn't ask you anything about McCain. I was asking if you really believe that Obama is a "new politician", and if so, how does his changes on positions fit with that. If your for him because he's the "lessor of two evils" in your opinion, then that's fine.

My point is that we're naive if we think political leaders don't change their positions on things. The irony about McCain is that he has had a Republican makeover on many of the issues he once stood for. I don't think we're seeing anything nearly so extreme in Obama. And when I've referred to "old politics" I'm talking about the character assassination and negative campaigning the Republicans resort to. If McCain wants to talk issues, he should talk issues. He doesn't need the rest. But what his campaign organizers want to do is shake people's confidence in Obama as a person. They are not debating issues, they are attacking a person. That is "old politics" and I don't know of any other party that does it as "well" as the Republicans.

b1e9a8r5s
08-04-2008, 01:02 PM
My point is that we're naive if we think political leaders don't change their positions on things. The irony about McCain is that he has had a Republican makeover on many of the issues he once stood for. I don't think we're seeing anything nearly so extreme in Obama.

So, you don't think he's a different kind of politician. That's all I was asking. What are your main reasons for supporting him then? What are the big issues for you? Or is it you don't like McCain, or Republicans?

ink
08-04-2008, 01:28 PM
So, you don't think he's a different kind of politician. That's all I was asking. What are your main reasons for supporting him then? What are the big issues for you? Or is it you don't like McCain, or Republicans?

I think his intelligence and humanity are genuine. He's a well grounded individual, and I find it ludicrous that his opponent is attempting to undercut his strongest traits. Yes, there is something different about him. I don't regard him as a "new politician" as much as I think of him as a "new American politician". I strongly think that America needs to stop being so inward and isolationist. That's by far the biggest issue for me. I think the question is - does America always want to elect the party that will shelter it and play on its worst insecurities? I find the Republican party to be the parochial party and I'm hoping that America sees what that has done in the world over the last eight years. I'm hoping Obama is just the first of many American presidents who will be more sophisticated and outward looking.

DenButsu
08-04-2008, 01:35 PM
I'm hoping Obama is just the first of many American presidents who will be more sophisticated and outward looking.

And the mistake that people are making - the illusion that McCain is somewhat effectively peddling right now - is that "educated" and "sophisticated" and "not a total shmuck' means he's an "elitist".

While McCain has many, many millions of dollars more than Obama in his bank account... :rolleyes:

ari1013
08-04-2008, 05:59 PM
I just want to ask something here; since itís obvious the majority of you are for Obama. In regards to the "new kind of politics" that he's proposing or advocating, how do you reconcile that to his "shifts" in positions? Telling the people in Pennsylvania and Michigan that he's anti NAFTA and then after securing the nomination saying that NAFTA is a good thing. Or speaking to a Pro-Israel lobby and speaking of an undivided Jerusalem and then the next day backing off that. Or the shifts on FISA and the possibility of more drilling (both of which I agree with btw). I just want to hear how that fits in with his "new brand of politics".

My opinion is that deep down, despite what he says, he's still "just a politician", allthough a very skilled one, I must admit.
It's nothing new. Every politician bows to the base during the primaries and then takes a run to the center once they get the nomination.

As far as the "new politician" mantra:
1. He's not taking any money from lobbyists, so that's a plus because he's not going to be beholden to their interests once elected.

2. He's running a relatively clean campaign. The worst thing that anyone seems to be able to come up with is that a Hillary surrogate, Wes Clark, said McCain's military service does not constitute executive experience.

3. He's running for the people's interests. Listen to his speeches, read his platforms. Most of it is about how you can better yourself. How you can get yourself on the right track.

b1e9a8r5s
08-04-2008, 08:45 PM
It's nothing new. Every politician bows to the base during the primaries and then takes a run to the center once they get the nomination.

As far as the "new politician" mantra:
1. He's not taking any money from lobbyists, so that's a plus because he's not going to be beholden to their interests once elected.

2. He's running a relatively clean campaign. The worst thing that anyone seems to be able to come up with is that a Hillary surrogate, Wes Clark, said McCain's military service does not constitute executive experience.

3. He's running for the people's interests. Listen to his speeches, read his platforms. Most of it is about how you can better yourself. How you can get yourself on the right track.

Are you implying that McCain is not running for people's interests? What is he running for then? Also, and I apologize for not having a link, but I read that while Obama hasn't taken money from lobbyists he has many donations from the spouses of lobbyists. A loophole around it, if you will. I wish I could remember where I saw the article.

b1e9a8r5s
08-04-2008, 08:47 PM
Here's an article about Obama's money....

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/444/

So it depends on your defenition of "lobbyists".

ari1013
08-04-2008, 10:35 PM
Are you implying that McCain is not running for people's interests? What is he running for then? Also, and I apologize for not having a link, but I read that while Obama hasn't taken money from lobbyists he has many donations from the spouses of lobbyists. A loophole around it, if you will. I wish I could remember where I saw the article.
McCain's definitely running for certain interests, but it's not for the Average Joe's well being.

As for your article
Is it possible that Barack Obama took "a dime" from someone connected to oil and gas lobbyists? Yes. But it looks as if Obama took good-faith measures not to accept money from current lobbyists for any industry, including oil and gas. For these reasons, we find his statement Mostly True.


That's about as good as it gets. He's clearly taking steps to avoid agenda-filled-donations. That's new politics.

b1e9a8r5s
08-04-2008, 11:17 PM
McCain's definitely running for certain interests, but it's not for the Average Joe's well being.

As for your article

That's about as good as it gets. He's clearly taking steps to avoid agenda-filled-donations. That's new politics.

I love how it's thrown out there like it's gospel that McCain or any other Republican doesn't care about the people. I just don't even know how to respond to that.

That's as good as it gets? I would call that diverting everyones attention by claiming one thing and then doing something else behind the curtain.