scoutingagain Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 I suppose I shouldn't be suprised. I mean how interesting would coverage of a campaign be if it focused on issues and the positions of the candidates. If that hapeened, either no one would read about the candidates or voters might make their decision based on something other than inuendo and appearances. I mean how many times can a newpaper or television news organization simply talk about the issues and expect people to watch or buy papers? Can't wait to see the article about Obama and a white woman, or maybe in his entire career he has never talked to or been seen associating with a white woman. Or an article on how he's not really "black" enough or some other absurd stuff. Funny thing is I see the bigger issue in the article is McCains being seemingly oblivious to the potential appearance of conflicts of interest. The article make him seem a little naive and I had the impression he would be more sensitive to such things. I'm a little suprised this nonsense started with the the Times though. I would have expected it to come from one of the television stations first, but I guess there's not much integrity left in political journalism in any media. No wonder we're all skeptics. SA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GernBlansten Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 I agree. Wasn't it McCain who railed against the influence of lobbyists in the political process? Does McCain/Feingold campaign finance reform ring a bell? Getting caught in bed with lobbyists(and I'm talking figuratively, not carnally) when one evangelized the danger of it makes him seem a bit disingenuous. But should we be surprised? Did he also just vote for torture when just last year he was one of the only Republicans against it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lisabob Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 Not to get too side tracked but SA, Obama has been fighting charges of not being "black enough" for much of his political career. There are some who say that his wife - she and her family are well connected in the black middle and upper class communities of Chicago - is his best line of defense against that. But I admit I have to really wonder when a guy whose father is from Kenya is not considered "black enough!" As for McCain. Well let's see. Our current president admitted (prior to election) that he had an alcohol problem and had done cocaine in the past. Our previous president admitted (prior to election) that he had smoked certain illegal herbs but "didn't inhale." I'd like to think the one before that (George Sr) was made of sterner stuff than either of those two but who knows. So in comparison I think I'm ok with McCain's human weaknesses. And John - no fair putting Monica Lewinsky on Hillary's shoulders - Hillary is not the one who couldn't control herself in that situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwd-scouter Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 Hmmm, putting Monica on Hillary's shoulders. Put someone on McCain's shoulders (how about "W") and then televise the chicken fight. Great fun for the campaign season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlyn_LeRoy Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 You finally came up with a debate I'd watch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John-in-KC Posted February 21, 2008 Author Share Posted February 21, 2008 Lisa, OK, I'll concede that. Will you sign on to the "Bimbo Eruption Management" charge? Actually, the shrillness of Hillary's strident speeches is what's getting my attention. She's getting desperate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packsaddle Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 Setting aside the truth (or lack of it) of the current accusations, I will note that McCain was an egregious victim of these types of tactics during a previous campaign. In the 2000 SC primary, the Bush campaign made phone calls and circulated church fliers in which they accused McCain of being insane, of having a black, illegitimate child, labeled him as "The Fag Candidate", and accused his wife of being a drug addict. This, from the campaign of an admitted alcoholic cocaine cowboy. Go figure. Well, we swallowed it just the same as we swallowed all the other stuff this administration has given us. So we elected Bush. Why would anyone expect a different kind of campaign today? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGreyEagle Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 See now Pack, back in 2000, I never saw McCain accused of any of that. Of course I live in Pennsylvania and our Primary is still aways off so you may have seen campaign tactics that were superfluous by the time the primary juggernaught got around to me. I may have thought differently about GW back then, then again, I would have had to have voted for Gore and he won Pennsylvania without my vote anyway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GernBlansten Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 Now pack, lets be fair, Bush is not really a cowboy. He grew up in Connecticut. Obama is facing similar attacks and whisper campaigns. He's been accused of attending a madrassah as a child, being a closet Muslim, having a middle name of Hussein, and Bill OReally announced yesterday that he'll lead a lynch mob if his wife doesn't start being proud of America. As for Hillary, the republicans left no stone unturned looking for dirt back when Bill was running the show. They were very thorough. I doubt there would be anything new and exciting there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lisabob Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 a lynch mob? Did O'Reilly actually say that? Oh dear. Not the best choice of words, given the cultural connotations. Not that I'd be all that shocked to find O'R spouting more dumb and offensive stuff but that one just seems like such an obvious one to have avoided. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GernBlansten Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 Here you go Lisa http://mediamatters.org/items/200802200001?f=h_top O'Reilly: "I don't want to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama unless there's evidence, hard facts, that say this is how the woman really feels" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packsaddle Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 I didn't hear it but this is what I read shortly after: O'Reilly: "I don't want to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama unless there's evidence, hard facts, that say this is how the woman really feels" Did he really say this? Anyone hear it? Edited part: I guess Gern and I were typing at the same time. Anyway, now I've heard it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRD-zBhE1xM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Region 7 Voyageur Posted February 22, 2008 Share Posted February 22, 2008 Voltaire said, "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." It sounds as though that Mr. O'Reilly believes the exact opposite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packsaddle Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 I didn't want to start a new thread and this one seemed related so here goes... A lot has happened since the thread started: McCain is annointed and everyone is speculating on the VP slot. Clinton is on the ropes but Obama hasn't quite crossed the finish line. And I just heard that Bob Barr may enter the race as a Libertarian candidate. This could be interesting. http://www.ajc.com/news/content/metro/stories/2008/04/04/barr_0405.html The follow-up views of Barr are, well, direct. Anyone else care? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lisabob Posted April 10, 2008 Share Posted April 10, 2008 Oh and don't forget Nader. Didn't I see that he was entering the race a few weeks back? (Did anybody in the whole country give a hoot?) Then there's Gene Amondson, running on the Prohibition party ticket (because prohibition worked so well last time we tried it) and Jackson Grimes of the United Fascist Union. Yes these guys are for real or anyway they seem to think they are. Check them out in the list of 2008 candidates over at project vote smart: http://www.votesmart.org/election_president_search.php?type=alpha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now