The way Obama and McCain deal with the press

[Hidden_Hunter]

One thing that I'm finding some what more irritating at the momment is that Obama seems to be acting like he's already the president, we don't even see anything of McCain here (so I can't say if it's the same the other way around)

[swek]

Originally Posted by jayhawk

From your point of view. Live in America for a while and you can see the differences.

I was applying European standards of course. I'm sure there's the "Earth Hippy Liberation Front", it's just that they aren't on any major news network.

Originally Posted by jayhawk

The common ground, the common thread is that we are all Americans. We pride ourselves on NOT thinking collectively, and believe in debate to bring topics to light, either for or against them. If there was no debate, there would be no democracy, it is the bedrock of it. And it is good to know now what a candidate is like now rather than later, so we may vote with logic, with facts, and with truths that are exposed during the campaigning.

Of course critical dialouge is needed in order to mantain a democracy. I wasn't implying that you should think as a collective but rather wishing you'd stop seeing one as being absolutely right and the other one as the person who stands for all the wrong things. This cannot be healthy. I would rather say that you walk common ground but the current climate prevents most from realising that.

Originally Posted by jayhawk

How is it sad? Is it sad that it goes against your beliefs? Would you comment if the tables were turned and it was John McCain being treated as god-like? Is it sad because what you may perceive as smearing of a political character is, in fact, healthy for a democracy? Politics are a viscous, take-no-prisoners philosophy to enter into my friend, and this sub forum should be treated as such. As you may have noticed, I have never personally insulted anyone on this forum based on their own beliefs. And if I myself disagree with a political stance or person, I will tear them limb to limb with logic and facts that in my heart of hearts, believe what is right.

It is sad in the regard that posters buy into the whole "Candidate X is the worst person there is, only Y can do right" mindset and post accordingly. Like you said above. You do believe that smearing is a part of a healthy democracy. I would go as far and say that is is a way to shy away from any real issue. Fine that you think that way, I have absolutely no problem with it. I just wish you'd see beyond those "issues" like wheter or not Obama is arrogant and start debating the real issues on hand. How can the question if the media is in love with him be the topic of the day? It's merely the media reporting on itself. It's of no substance at all.

You know what I would like to see being posted here? Both candidates stands on issues like Globalisation, The War on Terror, How to deal with China, Climate change, Health Care etc. Those are the issues which need to be discussed.

My post was never intended to mark you as someone who insults other people. It was merely me expressing myself after what I've seen posted here. I know that you hold stong beliefs. However, that shouldn't allow you to stop seeing the flaws of the one you support.

Originally Posted by jayhawk

I am thinking that you are not politically minded, and in some ways, I envy you, Max.

I am, I am just not affiliated to any political party. I remain sceptic towards all parties and decide who to support when the candidates have spoken. What you percieve as non-political is the fact that I have reamined an open mind and would never go as far as to follow only one party.

Even further, I will absolutely not discuss in that manner. Criticism needs to be applied to all candidates and real issues need to be talked about. In short: Remain critical, talk about the issues, shy away from the white smoke some media outlets are putting out. That's my stance on things. Of course I would like to see that here. It's an Internet forum though, so whopee. Let's have a beer, shall we?

[jayhawk]

Let's have a beer, indeed. I respect your stance. Thank you for elaborating.

[BlaRo]

My apologies to bump this, but I thought this was interesting:



Full Metal McCain

Even though I can't stand McCain and think he would bring America to the Dark Ages, I still think it's pretty harsh to poke fun at his torture in Vietnam. And even though I'm an Asian-American, I find it to be more offensive to McCain than "my people".

[Censport]

Originally Posted by BlaRo

Even though I can't stand McCain and think he would bring America to the Dark Ages,

I'd be interested in hearing why you think he would do that, and how you arrived at that opinion. Even if it is slightly off-topic from the original thread.

Along the same line, another poster, Andrewticus, stated:

When Obama comes in, it may be appear to be a superficial election at present, but it should serve in the future as an icon of a changing time in American (and global) politics. I can forsee lots of old faces and ideas being tossed out of the legislative branch, as well.

But the question is, replaced with what, exactly? None of Obama's associates, political or personal, can be considered moderate, center, or even mildly left-wing. Everybody around him, everybody that has shaped and taught him, is a radical leftist. Is America so desperate for a changing of the guard that it would benefit from a Chavez/Castro/Gueverra-like regime?

It's true that some of the Supreme Court Justices (Stevens, notably) are clinging to their positions waiting for a left-leaning Democrat to name their replacement. Perhaps Obama would pull a Clinton and replace all 93 federal judges with cronies that would shield him and his wife from prosecution and lawsuits in the future.

On the subject of the media, it's obvious that most of the American -if the not the world- media is favoring Obama. More American reporters, journalists and newsreaders have donated more money to his campaign than to McCain's, several times over. And the coverage is selected too. That 3-pointer shown all over the news? You didn't see the first 5 or 6 failed attempts, did you? That speech (in English) before 200,000 Germans? Was there any mention in your newspaper of the free rock concert? You know, the one that Obama made his speech in the middle of?

(I'm really disappointed that he didn't try to pull a JFK, although he would've had to change the phrase to "Ich bin ein beginner.")

McCain wasn't "my" candidate in the primaries. Aside from three issues (Iraq, cutting federal spending, and... I can't remember the third one), he's a Democrat. Might as well be Lieberman running. And he hasn't charmed the media, especially the female reporters who moan when Obama puts on a pair of jeans. But at least he doesn't contradict himself as much as Obama, he hasn't been caught lying as much as Obama (well, not since the Keating 5, anyway) and he can say something substantive, where Obama speaks dynamically while saying nothing.

Of course, in this American-Idol/Survivor/Big Brother age, dynamics are somehow more important than substance. But really, it's been that way since Nixon debated Kennedy in 1960. People who heard the debate on the radio thought Nixon won the it handily, while people who watched it on TV thought Kenndey did.

It's a matter of looking past the media to "see" the candidate. Here's a perspective from a serviceman in the U.S. Navy:

"Could you imagine the horror if it was the Republican party swooning over an oratory candidate in massive rallies with messianic overtones? The comparison to Hitler would be immediate and relentless. MSNBC would have a constant split screen showing how it was the 1930s all over again. Funny how the lefties decry blind faith and "lockstep" following unless it is their guy at the front."

[jetsetter]

Here’s what the presumptive Democratic candidate for President said on July 2, 2008:

“We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”

Got that? As reported by WorldNetDaily, this little bijoux was sandwiched into a speech Obama gave earlier this month in Colorado Springs. But don’t look for it in the published transcripts of the speech. It’s not there. But it is in the speech itself, which you can watch on YouTube here (the passage in question comes about mid-way through minute 16).

A “civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded” as the United States military.

What would that mean? It is, surely, a remarkable statement. Why was it not reported by the Dry Creek (formerly the Mainstream) media?

Reflecting on Obama’s comment and the absolute lack of notice it received in organs like The New York Times, Hugh Hewitt observes that “Obama represents the most inexperienced, risky major party nominee in American political history, and he is demonstrating that with at best inscrutable off-the-cuff rhetoric on a daily basis, but the MSM bigs are covering for him. Astonishing.”

It is indeed astonishing. Being a generous-spirited chap, Hugh Hewitt allows that Obama’s inscrutabilities (not to mention his inconsistencies, contradictions, and simple gaffes) are at least to some extent the product of “inexperience.” I wonder about that. I suspect Obama knows exactly what he means when he suggests that “We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times . . . and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK.”I think he understands what he means when he suggests implementing a government administered program requiring high school and college students to participate in “national service” programs. I think he understands what he means when he proposes, for example, to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire, to eliminate the cap on social security taxes, and to increase taxes on dividends and capital gains. I also think he understands what he means he inserts a line about creating a “civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded” as the United States military–a project, by the way, he would undertake while significantly disarming the United States military. Today, Powerline recaps some of Obama’s proposals on that score:

I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems…

…I will not weaponize space…

…I will slow development of future combat systems…

…and I will institute a “Defense Priorities Board” to ensure the quadrennial defense review is not used to justify unnecessary spending…

…I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons…

…and to seek that goal, I will not develop nuclear weapons…

…I will seek a global ban on the development of fissile material…

…and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair-trigger alert…

…and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals…

But even as Obama is racing to diminsih the capabilities of the United States military–the institution that protects us from foreign aggressors–he seeks to establish A “civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded” as the United States military.

Whom or what would such a security force police? Whom would they protect? Whom would they intimidate?

I think Obama knows exactly what he is doing. As Paul Mirengoff at Powerline notes, “Liberals aren’t less militaristic than the rest of us. They just differ as to who it is that needs to be confronted by our forces.”

Remember this: A “civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded” as the United States military. And remember what Hannah Arendt, in The Origins of Totalitarianism, said about that curious “mixture of gullibility and cynicism” that is “prevalent in all ranks of totalitarian movements, and the higher the rank the more the cynicism weighs down the gullibility.” In The Road to Serfdom , Friedrich Hayek chose a wise but also widely neglected observation by David Hume for one of his epigraphs: “It is seldom,” Hume wrote in 1742, “that liberty of any kind is lost all at once.” Worth bearing in mind, is it not?

http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerkimball...te-of-the-day/

Jesus.......

This would make the DHS seem like child's play.

[Censport]

Originally Posted by jetsetter

Jesus.......

This would make the DHS seem like child's play.

More like the KGB. Almost sounds like Obama wants to make the Peace Corp his secret police. Since the American Left has proven time and again that "The Enemy" is not radical Islamofascists, communism, or genocidal dictators, but rather the American Right...

Or maybe Obama is making a play for the Second Amendment. The left has long argued that it was only for militias (which get shut down anyway) or the National Guard (which didn't come along until 150+ years after the Bill of Rights), while the right has always argued it was for individuals, to protect themselves from their government.

[BlaRo]

Originally Posted by Censport

I'd be interested in hearing why you think he would do that, and how you arrived at that opinion. Even if it is slightly off-topic from the original thread.

Yeah, I'm just exaggerating. But I really don't like his policies regarding the Iraq War, his passing off Iran and North Korea as enemies instead of dealing with them diplomatically, his policies against abortion and gay marriage, and his desire to stay in Iraq until God knows when. Obama's not innocent either (see above posts), but McCain just seems like more of the same.

Back when Hillary was still in the race, it used to seem (thanks to the media and the minds of young people) like Obama was truly a shining white knight, a near-mythical being come to liberate us from the stifling oppression of boring, dreary angry old white men out of touch with the American public. Now all the hero-worship surrounding him is taking on sinister overtones, and just like in 2004 no candidate is that appealing.

[jetsetter]

and his desire to stay in Iraq until God knows when.

At this point Obama's and McCain's stance on Iraq are fairly similar.

[Censport]

Originally Posted by BlaRo

Yeah, I'm just exaggerating. But I really don't like his policies regarding the Iraq War, his passing off Iran and North Korea as enemies instead of dealing with them diplomatically, his policies against abortion and gay marriage, and his desire to stay in Iraq until God knows when. Obama's not innocent either (see above posts), but McCain just seems like more of the same.

Back when Hillary was still in the race, it used to seem (thanks to the media and the minds of young people) like Obama was truly a shining white knight, a near-mythical being come to liberate us from the stifling oppression of boring, dreary angry old white men out of touch with the American public. Now all the hero-worship surrounding him is taking on sinister overtones, and just like in 2004 no candidate is that appealing.

My apologies for taking so long to respond.

I think McCain's war policies are actually quite reasonable, and probably better thought out than Bush's early handling. Basically, McCain doesn't want to leave Iraq while an Iranian takeover or internal coup is possible. Obama doesn't care about that, or at least he doesn't when he's speaking to potential voters. When he's speaking to the Iraqi Foreign Minister he sings a different tune, one that sounds amazingly like McCain's.

As for abortion and gay marriage, the former is up to the Supreme Court, and they're not likely to address the topic any time soon. Look how long it took them to address the 2nd Amendment! The latter is up to the states, as it should be. Marriage has never been addressed by federal legislation, and never should. Besides, I think the country is facing more pressing issues.

I'm glad you said you were exaggerating. I remember a public shool teacher who, during the 2000 election, asked his students who they supported, and one of the black kids said that Bush would bring slavery back if he were elected. So much for education...

As the election drags on, even Obama supporters are seeing that he isn't a "new kind of politician", but rather the same old same old, pandering for votes and flip-flopping for political expediency. But so many hate Bush (who isn't running) so much, that they would vote for the corpse of John Wayne Gacy if that was the only alternative to the Republican ticket.

[jayhawk]

Originally Posted by Censport

\ But so many hate Bush (who isn't running) so much, that they would vote for the corpse of John Wayne Gacy if that was the only alternative to the Republican ticket.

http://www.bobbarr2008.com/home/skip/?s=0618-video

[jetsetter]

For those who don't know for years McCain was the Republican that Democrats could deal with in Congress. He was the one that the Democrats preferred to deal with. That is what is called a "Maverick" and it is what both the Democrats and Republicans called him before all of this election business.

http://www.npr.org/templates/player/...5&d=08-06-2008

[Firecat]

Originally Posted by jetsetter

For those who don't know for years McCain was the Republican that Democrats could deal with in Congress. He was the one that the Democrats preferred to deal with. That is what is called a "Maverick" and it is what both the Democrats and Republicans called him before all of this election business.

http://www.npr.org/templates/player/...5&d=08-06-2008

I didn't listen. But yeah, the dems AND media loved him. If i'm not mistaken, the repubs felt the exact opposite. Funny how things have flipped.

[jetsetter]

Critical of McCain, Obama quiet on own energy vote

By TOM RAUM – 1 day ago

YOUNGSTOWN, Ohio (AP) — Democratic candidate Barack Obama criticized Republican John McCain on Tuesday for taking a page out of "the Cheney playbook" on energy, overlooking his own support of oil-friendly policies that the unpopular vice president helped to craft.

Vice President Dick Cheney, a former oilman, early in the Bush administration helped draft an energy policy that Obama asserted is biased in favor of tax breaks and favorable treatment for big oil. Obama's remarks were an attempt to capitalize on Cheney's unpopularity.

"President Bush, he had an energy policy. He turned to Dick Cheney and he said, 'Cheney, go take care of this,'" Obama said. "Cheney met with renewable-energy folks once and oil and gas (executives) 40 times. McCain has taken a page out of the Cheney playbook."

In stumping Tuesday in this key battleground state, Obama sought to link the troubled economy with Republican policies and offer his own energy plan in contrast. He has tried to cast McCain as more concerned about oil company profits and drilling than an overall energy strategy.

However, Obama himself voted for a 2005 energy bill backed by Bush that included billions in subsidies for oil and natural gas production, a measure Cheney played a major role in developing. McCain opposed the bill on grounds it included billions in unnecessary tax breaks for the oil industry.

The Obama campaign has said the Illinois senator supported the legislation because it included huge investments in renewable energy.

McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds, said, "Barack Obama is opposed to offshore drilling and is also opposed to admitting that he voted for the same corporate giveaways for Big Oil that he's campaigning against today."

With polls showing concern over gas prices a prime concern of Americans, Obama has been depicting energy as the nation's most pressing national security and economic issue.

Obama has proposed a $1,000-per family energy rebate to be paid for by a tax on excessive energy-company profits. He called for ending U.S. reliance on oil from the Middle East and Venezuela over the next 10 years, a project he said would cost the U.S. $150 billion.

Obama has also proposed borrowing oil from the strategic petroleum reserve as a short-term measure to reduce gasoline prices, a conditional and limited resumption of offshore drilling, and a new emphasis on alternative energy sources and hybrid vehicles.

"Our economy is in turmoil, I don't have to tell the people of Youngstown," Obama told a high-school gymnasium audience in this rust-belt city. "People here have known some hard knocks and hard times."

Ohio is a bellwether state, having voted for the winning candidate in all 11 presidential elections since 1964, including handing Bush a close re-election victory in 2004.

Increasingly, with his appearances this week and with a new ad, Obama has been seeking to tie McCain to the oil and gas industry, although McCain, unlike Bush and Cheney, did not previously work in the industry.

A new Obama ad says Big Oil filled McCain's campaign with $2 million in contributions and that he "wants to give them another $4 billion in tax breaks."

That $4 billion consists mainly of potential revenue from a McCain proposal to lower corporate taxes on all American businesses.

The McCain campaign pointed out that the ad doesn't mention Obama has taken some $400,000 from oil company executives.

"We have to end the age of oil. "Obama said. "If we fail to act, there are severe indications for national security, our economy and our environment."

Obama has had trouble connecting with white working-class voters, who are a major factor in Ohio. Clinton won the state in its Democratic primary earlier this year. Gov. Ted Strickland, who had been a Clinton supporter, gave a rousing endorsement of Obama, calling him "bright, young, energized and compassionate."

Obama's focused on economic issues. He said that oil giant Exxon-Mobil "makes in 30 seconds what the typical Ohio worker makes in a year."

"We need more jobs and economic development. Why don't we focus on clean energy and reopening factories and putting people back to work? Nobody is benefiting from jobs that are leaving the community," he said.

Obama has proposed a $15-billion-a-year program to help promote clean-energy jobs.

In a question-and-answer session, Obama was asked if he would support term limits for members of Congress by a questioner who noted that many senators were elderly.

"I've got colleagues in the Senate who are doing absolutely outstanding work, and they're well into their 70s," Obama said. He praised ailing Sen. Edward M. Kennedy as one.

"I'm generally not in favor of term limits," he said. "Nobody is term-limiting the lobbyists or the slick operators walking around the halls of Congress. I believe in one form of term limits. They're called elections."

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i...I1gMgD92C94JO0

Sigh, how few will actually hear or care about Obama's record?