McCain and Obama

MartinLogan Audio Owners Forum

Help Support MartinLogan Audio Owners Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
... but the McCain campaign seems to want to distract everybody...

McCain isn't hiding behind Palin so much as the mainstream Dems place
her in the spotlight via their misguided attacks. It's Palin's affect on leftists
which makes McCain's choice such excellent strategy.

The Dems were obviously caught off guard and are reeling. They know that
personal attacks on a hockey-mom turned politician look awful, but they
just can't stop themselves. The disproportionate vitriol Palin has drawn
from leftist in such a short period is amazing. Palin truly exposes that the
Dems have become the Party Of Hate. Is anyone surprised McCain is sitting
back while Dems hang themselves?

Each time Dems accuse Palin of inexperience, it calls attention to the same
glaring fault in Obama. Palin can tout tangible reform and accomplishments
as Alaska's Governor. Obama as Senator? Not so much (hence the "Community
organizer" jibe at the convention). It's telling that Obama, the top-ticket,
feels theneed to directly criticize Palin, who is the bottom-ticket.
Worried much, Mr Obama?

McCain may have planned for Palin from the start to counter Hillary as VP.
But as things turned out, it appears that McCain patiently waited for Obama
to choose a business-as-usual VP and then capitalized on the mistake. Instead
of some real "change" with Hillary as VP (or a more inspired choice), Obama
now has a white, male, D.C. policy-wonk as VP.

So in keeping with that, here's a video of Matt Damon...

People who desire politcal analysis from actors and celebrities surely also
want to read the National Inquirer's expose' on Palin.

Inquiring minds want to know!
 
Obama/Biden; McCain/Palin. It's just the reverse polarity of the same distortion.
 
HSV,

Of course no reasonably intelligent person takes talking points from a celebrity (or the Enquirer for that matter -- didn't even bother to click the link), but two things about the clip stood out to me.

1) The Associated Press (respected organization -- even Fox News sources a lot of material from them) saw fit to ask Matt Damon for his thoughts, then post the video clip on the web.

2) Mr. Damon makes some good points that are at least worth pondering. I especially liked the absurdity argument in trusting her with the nuclear launch codes...

~VDR
 
McCain isn't hiding behind Palin so much as the mainstream Dems place
her in the spotlight via their misguided attacks. It's Palin's affect on leftists
which makes McCain's choice such excellent strategy.

The Dems were obviously caught off guard and are reeling. They know that
personal attacks on a hockey-mom turned politician look awful, but they
just can't stop themselves. The disproportionate vitriol Palin has drawn
from leftist in such a short period is amazing.

I would have to agree with you here Mr ToolFool. The Democrats should be concentrating on McCain and allow Palin to self destruct. The information emerging about her governance as the mayor of Wasilla and Governor of Alaska is not a good news story.

Her first outing was notable to me particularly for not knowing what the Bush doctrine was and a bit of sabre rattling with the Russians. In the same interview she claimed foreign policy credentials based on energy knowledge. The little bit of knowledge she really needed was the dependence of West European nations on Russian oil i.e. I doubt they want to irritate the Russians. They tend to belong to NATO but I suspect do not want a war over Georgia.

She is only of relevance in taking the heat off McCain.

Kevin
 
Last edited:
I have to disagree with your assessment of the "inherent bias" of these interviews.

Are you speaking in general or about the two specific interviews?

The Obama/Gibson interview was a text book puff piece. How's the family?
How do you feel? You didn't look happy? The ommission of all policy-related
topics was glaring. Barf.

The bias against Palin was actually worse than my first impression. ABC heavily
edited the original video, which seems highly unethical to me. Here is the
full transcript...

http://marklevinshow.com/gibson-interview

Obviously, Gibson's two interviews are nothing more than an anecdotal
example of bias. In contrasting the two interviews, I wasn't making a case
for widespread media bias, just Gibson's in these specific cases.

That said, I strongly believe the public's perception of a leftist bias is
well-founded, though difficult to prove emperically.

Tell me, do you think Palin will be brave enough to appear on the O'Reilly Factor?

Brave? She's from Alaska, dude. She hunts moose and has five kids. A reporter
would have to draw a gun just to make her raise an eyebrow.

I also fully expect O'Reilly to show positive bias towards Palin. O'Reilly is a
hypocritical, sensationalist hack, and I apologize to hack journalists for insulting
their creed. But his current meal-ticket is posing as an outraged right-winger,
so he'd give Palin or McCain a puff piece.

By the way, Obama came across better on O'Reilly than on Gibson because
it wasn't nauseating ass-kissery. You can't look commanding and
compentent while playing slow pitch.

Continuing the sports metaphore, Palin was called up from the minors
and hit a decent single her first time at the plate. She wasn't facing
Nolan Ryan, but she also didn't bunt or strike out. You go girl.

Wright is a pastor, for Chrissakes. Who cares what he has to say or what Obama has to say about him?

You cannot... possibly... be serious.

This creep didn't just say a few racist things. Indeed, who would care?
Besides the church members, of course. Assuming they aren't racist
hypocrites. Which apparently, they are.

Now if you substitute the word "white" each time "black" appears in the
Trinity United Church of Christ "Black Value System" (now removed from their
web site), the result is a KKK rally speech. Every member, including Obama
and his wife, are tainted by association with those values.

Wright was Obama's pastor for twenty effin' years! Wright baptised
his children! He attended that church 20 years and only left due to political
manuevering. Obama either agrees with Wright's philosophy and is racist,
or he attended as a cynical bid to distance himself from his white family
in Hawaii and establish credibility as a minority in Chicago.

When I was about 17, the Southern Baptist church my family attended my
entire life self-destructed. The young, new pastor had scheduled a gospel
group to give a special concert. The group was somewhat famous, so the entire
congregation was very excited. Or so we thought. The singers were black,
and a few racist dinosaurs were outraged over the invitation. So the
old codgers tried to get the pastor fired for other reasons via church politics.
The racist aspect was eventually exposed, so my family plus 75% of the
church voted with their feet.

We couldn't stomach being around racists for any length of time,
much less 20 years.

I never cared for Trent Lott, but I'll never forget that he was forced to step down
as Senate majority leader because of one innocent, off-hand comment. He was
trying to compliment an old, racist Democrat Senator at his reitrement party. The
media and Dems did backflips to mis-characterize the incident, ignore the fact
it was all about a Democrat's racism, and make a huge stink over nothing.
Lott made the double mistake of apologizing, but nothing less than his
resignation was acceptable.

Yet fraternizing with racist scum like Wright's church is okay for a
Presidential candidate.

...since this was her first interview with the media, it makes
perfect since that Gibson would focus on her experience and her understanding of
international affairs. Obama has already been much vetted in those areas...

When was Obama vetted on foreign affairs? I missed that memo. Was it when
he insulted Pakistan by stating he might send troops across their border to
hunt down terrorists? No, it must have been when he arrogantly tried to use
Germany's Brandenburg Gate as a backdrop for a campaign stop. Perhaps it
was less than a month ago when Obama called for the UN Security Council
to draw up a resolution condeming Russia for invading Georgia, forgetting
not only that the UN is a colossal waste of time, but that Russia has a veto
on the UN Security Council.
 
Excellent rebuttal....again.. Brian !!!

Man I'm gonna run another American flag up the pole this AM !!!
 
I would have to agree with you here Mr ToolFool. The Democrats should be concentrating on McCain and allow Palin to self destruct.


Agreed Kevin, even Karl Rove, who was interviewd yeaterday said the same thing, Obama needs to get back on the trail of HE is going to do to right this ship.

FWIW, BOTH canidates should spend their time on the real issues rather than "approving every message " on the airwaves that merely does nothing more than 'sling mud' !

I for one believe this 'part' of the reason so many folks get turned off on the whole election process to begin with.
 
I'm sure that the next post will contain some criticism of "liberal Hollywood types", but please rebut with a little more thoughtfulness.

~VDR

No.......... that is just about right. No more thoughtfulness required.
Doug - out

But seriously, who the HE double hockey sticks is Matt Damon? Someone needs to give him a ultimatum.
Doug - out again
 
Last edited:
Obviously, Gibson's two interviews are nothing more than an anecdotal example of bias. In contrasting the two interviews, I wasn't making a case for widespread media bias, just Gibson's in these specific cases.

That said, I strongly believe the public's perception of a leftist bias is
well-founded, though difficult to prove emperically.

And I stand by my earlier post...[#237]

When I was about 17, the Southern Baptist church my family attended my entire life self-destructed. The young, new pastor had scheduled a gospel group to give a special concert. The group was somewhat famous, so the entire congregation was very excited. Or so we thought. The singers were black, and a few racist dinosaurs were outraged over the invitation. So the old codgers tried to get the pastor fired for other reasons via church politics. The racist aspect was eventually exposed, so my family plus 75% of the church voted with their feet.

We couldn't stomach being around racists for any length of time,
much less 20 years.

Good on you and yours!

I never cared for Trent Lott, but I'll never forget that he was forced to step down as Senate majority leader because of one innocent, off-hand comment. He was trying to compliment an old, racist Democrat Senator at his reitrement party. The media and Dems did backflips to mis-characterize the incident, ignore the fact it was all about a Democrat's racism, and make a huge stink over nothing. Lott made the double mistake of apologizing, but nothing less than his resignation was acceptable.

I agree -- to a point. I don't think it was "a huge stink over nothing." I do think if it had not been for the excesses by some of the Republicans (in their misplaced mania to try to destroy Bill Clinton), this might not have blown up the way it did.

In addition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trent_Lott): "Lott wrote a memoir entitled Herding Cats: A Life in Politics. In the book, Lott spoke out on the infamous Strom Thurmond birthday party gaffe, former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, and about his feelings of betrayal toward the Tennessee senator, claiming "If Frist had not announced exactly when he did, as the fire was about to burn out, I would still be majority leader of the Senate today."[18] He also described former Democratic Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota as trustworthy.[19] He also reveals that President Bush, then-Secretary of State Colin Powell, and other GOP leaders played a major role in ending his career as Senate Republican Leader."

When was Obama vetted on foreign affairs? I missed that memo.

Hmm...I'm pretty sure I got that one. At least he ACTUALLY went to Iraq (unlike Sarah, who CLAIMED she did, but turns out she LIED)...

Was it when he insulted Pakistan by stating he might send troops
across their border
to
hunt down terrorists?

You mean like Bush is doing now? Or like McCain and Palin have said they would do?

No, it must have been when he arrogantly tried to use Germany's Brandenburg Gate as a backdrop for a campaign stop.

Nothing arrogant about it at all. Just smart. At least over 200,000 folks wildly CHEERED him, mostly for the uplifting message of hope for the future that he was bringing to them. Much different than Bush or Cheney, who generally just get booed and jeered when THEY travel to foreign countries (or, hell -- even within the United States, for that matter), with good reason.

Perhaps it was less than a month ago when Obama called for the UN Security Council to draw up a resolution condeming Russia for invading Georgia, forgetting not only that the UN is a colossal waste of time, but that Russia has a veto on the UN Security Council.

I seriously doubt that he forgot anything. Even grede school kids know all about Russia and the UN Security Council. But, it is just like the extremist right wing to want us out of the UN, and generally doesn't want to try diplomacy first. Like Bush "We're going in anyway." Never mind the facts... :rolleyes:

BTW. ever hear The Chad Mitchell Trio's recording of "The John Birch Society?" Hilarious, and highly recommended. :D
 
Last edited:
Mr. ToolFool,

Please drop your argument on Rev. Wright and the "guilt by association" rap. That dog won't hunt, and you know it.

The argument is so weak that it's not even worth countering.

~VDR
 
I don't know if this is true, but it probably is and can be checked; but I heard that because of Obama's association with a known terrorist, he would not qualify to be an FBI agent or Secret Service agent. They have high standards. Yet he wants to be President. Kind of ironic. The people who you associate with do reflect your character.
Torry
 
At least he ACTUALLY went to Iraq (unlike Sarah, who CLAIMED she did, but turns out she LIED)

Sarah Palin did not make that claim. Supposedly, a campaign aide in Alaska
made the statement under conditions of anonymity. Here is the paragraph from
the original AP story...

"On Saturday, a Palin aide told The Associated Press the governor also set foot in Iraq during her July 2007 trip to see members of the Alaska National Guard, although the campaign has not emphasized it since the visit was brief. The aide, who demanded anonymity before answering the question, said Palin visited a "military outpost" on the Iraq side of the Kuwait/Iraq border."

It was probably a simple mistake by a volunteer who didn't know what they were
talking about. It was clearly not part of any official statement by the campaign.

Given the amount of attention this unproveable gossip has gotten, the possibility also
exists that the AP reporter embellished (or even invented) an untraceable source just
to make trouble.
 
The Democrats should be concentrating on McCain and allow Palin to self destruct.

Political campaigns are just keeping score over who makes
the most goofs. Okay, we all do a Jaegerbomb each time a
candidate gets the number of States wrong or
forgets which State he's in.

The information emerging about her governance as the mayor of Wasilla and Governor of Alaska is not a good news story.

I've been reviewing pre-VP stories of Palin's tenure (everything
printed after that is suspect, of course). Most of what I see is
very positive.

Her first outing was notable to me particularly for not knowing what the Bush doctrine was...

I suspect the topic was a surprise, but by intent or accident,
Palin's demand for clarification was astute. Gibson asked a
very vauge question, although I doubt he knew that.
 
I don't know if this is true, but it probably is and can be checked; but I heard that because of Obama's association with a known terrorist, he would not qualify to be an FBI agent or Secret Service agent. They have high standards. Yet he wants to be President. Kind of ironic. The people who you associate with do reflect your character.
Torry

If you "don't know if this is true, but it probably is and can be checked..." why didn't YOU check it out? Was it because you are more interested in spreading malicious gossip than discussing issues and what each candidate's presidency would be like?

Here...I've done it for you: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/02/obamas_weatherman_connection.html

Took all of 12 seconds...

BTW, Obama was, um, like eight (8) years old when the person in question was doing his "bomb" stuff.

Sheeze!!! :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
 
Wonder Woman

I'm really inspired by Sara Palin. But lately that nasty "Liberal News Media" has had the audacity to question some of the truths she and what's his name have been repeating on the campaign trail. What I'd really like to know is can she REALLY $uck start a snow machine? :)

Satch
 
I'm not a health insurance expert, but I was wondering what any of our doctors or anyone with employer-based coverage think about this...

September 16, 2008
NYTimes

McCain’s Radical Agenda
By BOB HERBERT
Talk about a shock to the system. Has anyone bothered to notice the radical changes that John McCain and Sarah Palin are planning for the nation’s health insurance system?

These are changes that will set in motion nothing less than the dismantling of the employer-based coverage that protects most American families.

A study coming out Tuesday from scholars at Columbia, Harvard, Purdue and Michigan projects that 20 million Americans who have employment-based health insurance would lose it under the McCain plan.

There is nothing secret about Senator McCain’s far-reaching proposals, but they haven’t gotten much attention because the chatter in this campaign has mostly been about nonsense — lipstick, celebrities and “Drill, baby, drill!”

For starters, the McCain health plan would treat employer-paid health benefits as income that employees would have to pay taxes on.

“It means your employer is going to have to make an estimate on how much the employer is paying for health insurance on your behalf, and you are going to have to pay taxes on that money,” said Sherry Glied, an economist who chairs the Department of Health Policy and Management at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health.

Ms. Glied is one of the four scholars who have just completed an independent joint study of the plan. Their findings are being published on the Web site of the policy journal, Health Affairs.

According to the study: “The McCain plan will force millions of Americans into the weakest segment of the private insurance system — the nongroup market — where cost-sharing is high, covered services are limited and people will lose access to benefits they have now.”

The net effect of the plan, the study said, “almost certainly will be to increase family costs for medical care.”

Under the McCain plan (now the McCain-Palin plan) employees who continue to receive employer-paid health benefits would look at their pay stubs each week or each month and find that additional money had been withheld to cover the taxes on the value of their benefits.

While there might be less money in the paycheck, that would not be anything to worry about, according to Senator McCain. That’s because the government would be offering all taxpayers a refundable tax credit — $2,500 for a single worker and $5,000 per family — to be used “to help pay for your health care.”

You may think this is a good move or a bad one — but it’s a monumental change in the way health coverage would be provided to scores of millions of Americans. Why not more attention?

The whole idea of the McCain plan is to get families out of employer-paid health coverage and into the health insurance marketplace, where naked competition is supposed to take care of all ills. (We’re seeing in the Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch fiascos just how well the unfettered marketplace has been working.)

Taxing employer-paid health benefits is the first step in this transition, the equivalent of injecting poison into the system. It’s the beginning of the end.

When younger, healthier workers start seeing additional taxes taken out of their paychecks, some (perhaps many) will opt out of the employer-based plans — either to buy cheaper insurance on their own or to go without coverage.

That will leave employers with a pool of older, less healthy workers to cover. That coverage will necessarily be more expensive, which will encourage more and more employers to give up on the idea of providing coverage at all.

The upshot is that many more Americans — millions more — will find themselves on their own in the bewildering and often treacherous health insurance marketplace. As Senator McCain has said: “I believe the key to real reform is to restore control over our health care system to the patients themselves.”

Yet another radical element of McCain’s plan is his proposal to undermine state health insurance regulations by allowing consumers to buy insurance from sellers anywhere in the country. So a requirement in one state that insurers cover, for example, vaccinations, or annual physicals, or breast examinations, would essentially be meaningless.

In a refrain we’ve heard many times in recent years, Mr. McCain said he is committed to ridding the market of these “needless and costly” insurance regulations.

This entire McCain health insurance transformation is right out of the right-wing Republicans’ ideological playbook: fewer regulations; let the market decide; and send unsophisticated consumers into the crucible alone.

You would think that with some of the most venerable houses on Wall Street crumbling like sand castles right before our eyes, we’d be a little wary about spreading this toxic formula even further into the health care system.

But we’re not even paying much attention.
 
Last edited:
Steve -

Neither candidate addresses healthcare thoroughly. This issue consumes 16 % of the GDP and will likely eat up more than 25% in the next 15-20 years.

As I see it:

Most Americans are extremely reactive with respect to their health. Only after a major illness or injury do they worry about their diet or excercise regimine. Never mind that 25+ years of a relatively inactive lifestyle coupled with a bad diet - we worry about the problems after it is too late.

As best I can tell, the doctors work for the insurance companies. They pay very high liability insurance because if they make a mistake, everyone sues them. These high premiums are passed over to the consumer. Why do you think aspirin costs $10 or MRIs cost $2000 or $3000 ? The doctors point fingers at the insurance companies and the insurance companies point fingers at the doctors; truly a vicious cycle.

One thing that I am not opposed to (in terms of more federal involvement) is some kind of fund that enables people to visit the doctor once a year, or maybe every other year for free (or maybe afund that pays for half the visit) for a routine checkup. You'd think if we catch the problems early, that would go a long way to lower costs.

Like all things it's a complicated problem... this one is a tough nut to crack.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top