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.
just flip the channels for a while, and look at the print media.............if you dare.

I understand what you are saying, Doug. And like I said, this is a common conception that the media is generally biased to the left. But in this particular election cycle, this group studied every news report about McCain and Obama since the primaries were finished, and found the coverage was overall more negative towards Obama.

I'll take the word of a scientific study conducted by a nonpartisan group whose sole purpose is critically evaluating the media over "just flip the channels and look at the print media." And while you provided a fictional account of what the examples could be like trying to show that the study could have been biased, the CMPA provides this example:

Examples of Obama’s evaluations:

Positive: “Obama came to Baghdad and he brought his star power with him…..hundreds of U.S. troops and State Department personnel mobbed Obama at the embassy here.” –Terry Moran, ABC

Negative: “You raised a lot of eyebrows on this trip saying, even knowing what you know now, you still would not have supported the surge. People may be scratching their heads and saying, ‘why’?” – Katie Couric, CBS

Negative: “Far more Americans say John McCain would be a good commander in chief than Obama” – Jake Tapper, ABC

I don't think we will ever get the bias out of reporting, but overall in this election cycle, I don't think the media has been favoring Obama over McCain, and I think this study supports that view. Of course, that may change now that McCain has thrown down the gauntlet.
 
Thanks Jerry - I had gained the impression that the Secretary of Defense outranked the Joint Chief of Staff particularly with the sidelining of Colin Powell early in the current administration's tenure.

Kevin

I really don't think being made Secretary of State can be called sidelining. Later on in the Administration when Powell failed to meet expectations by not being able to bring France into the coalition against Iraq...that's when he effectively sidelined himself..
 
While the "title" of Commander and Chief is largely ceremonial the President as set forth in the Constitution really is the CnC..he ultimatly makes the calls and cannot delegate that authority. Number 2 in the Chain of Command of our military is not supposed to be the Secretary of Defense but that position is often abused. Number 2 is supposed to be the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

"Number 2...is not supposed to be the Secretary of Defense..."

:wtf:

Umm, this is puzzling...:confused:

"Among other changes, Goldwater-Nichols streamlined the military chain of command, which now runs from the President through the Secretary of Defense directly to unified combat commanders, bypassing the service chiefs who were assigned an advisory role."

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldwater-Nichols_Act

I'd appreciate any clarification you could provide regarding the above, inasmuch the Goldwater-Nichols Act sure seems to indicate that the Secretary of Defense (or SECDEF if you prefer) is solidly number 2 in the Chain of Command. Or, am I getting my information from questionable sources again? ;)
 
I trust Sarah and John will be able to discuss the socialisation of the delinquent financial mess that has occurred on the Republican watch.

The Australian stock market roared up today with the news of the American taxpayer funding of the profits and bonuses of the financial sector in the States.

Kevin
 
I remain furious about the inevitable bailout of these finance companies. Why does the logic of limiting harm suddenly prevail?

When the government gives money to the poor it is called socialism. When the government gives money to the rich it is called Republicanism.

Get rid of them. The current administration have to be amongst the most disgusting corruptions of the Christian philosophy that it has been my misfortune to observe. People like this are what drove me away from churches and the inevitable logic of atheism .

What has happened to the virtues of personal responsibility and the pursuit of freedom while remaining cognisant of the rights of those that surround you. What has happened to the community building real republicans. Where are they? Why are they so silent? Why have they allowed the lunatic right to steal their party?

Seriously irritated though, of course, you are still all welcome for a beer, wine, food and music when in this part of the world.

Kevin
 
Last edited:
It's Like 1984, All Over Again

RON PAUL SUPPORTERS MISTREATED DURING RNC CONVENTION

By NWV News Director, Jim Kouri
While millions of Americans watched the 2008 Republican Convention on television, the well-staged event wasn't all peaceful and enthusiastic, according to several delegates attending the St. Paul, Minnesota event.
Several delegates -- who are avowed Ron Paul supporters -- claim they were treated shabbily at best, harshly at worst.
"While almost every other GOP contender for president was permitted to speak at the convention, Ron Paul was not. The word was that Paul was invited, with the natural caveat that he (like the other speakers) endorse McCain for president, which Paul was reportedly unwilling to do," said a McCain delegate from West Virginia.
"Instead, Paul held a separate 'convention' for one afternoon at the Minneapolis Convention Center," said the WV delegate.
The McCain campaign and the Republican National Committee were unnecessarily nervous about the presence of Ron Paul delegates at the XCel Energy Center, and sometimes that fact was reflected in unwarranted actions, such as someone yanking away a banner proclaiming the word "Liberty" being held by a handful of Paul delegates outside the building, according to several delegates.
In fact, several told NewsWithViews.com that while the Rep. Paul delegates demonstrated little, if any, support for McCain throughout the convention -- mostly sitting quietly on their hands while the rest of the crowd erupted around them -- they caused no problems and were respectful and polite, including the Paul delegates from West Virginia.
"The Ron Paul movement has brought thousands of young people into the political process -- shouldn't the GOP find ways to welcome them rather than alienate them?” said "Patrick," a delegate and Ron Paul supporter from Maine.
The Maine delegate claimed that these was probably a larger contingent of military and police than there were delegates and alternates.
"Buses, each with an armed law enforcement officials [took] us from the hotel to the convention
each day. Upon arrival you go through two levels of electronic security like the airport. Once you arrive on the convention floor, they have security guards every ten feet facing the rows of delegates," said Patrick.
Delegates were not allowed to speak throughout the convention. Periodically the security guards, would tell the delegates to rise and cheer. Prior to the convention, delegates were told no banners or signs would be allowed,​
several sources told NewsWithViews.
At opening of the convention, the convention floor was flood with McCain banners. At different times, there were a large contingent of men with McCain baseball caps at the entranceway out of site at the entrances to the aisles.
When former Democrat Joe Lieberman or one of the other McCain celebrities were introduced, the young men with red baseball caps were released and sent down the aisles to cheers and then returned to back of the convention floor to await the next cue to fill the aisle make it appear that the convention floor was filled.
Several delegates complained that anything proposed by Rep. Ron Paul or his staff was not included in the list of platform resolutions. In addition, no Ron Paul delegate was allowed to serve on either the Platform Committee or the Rules Committee.
"No delegate or alternate had an opportunity to read the rules because they were not made available until the start of the convention," said another Ron Paul supporter.
"Thus the opportunity to offer floor amendments was impossible. As Ron Paul delegate, I was made to feel like a turd in punch bowl.....may have something to do with the large Ron Paul button I was wearing and my refusal to stand amidst all the cheering for folks like Joe Lieberman," said the Maine delegate.
"When asked by the Maine delegation whip if I would vote for John McCain, I told them I would be voting for Ron Paul. His reply was [that] the Maine delegation would not announce 20 votes for John McCain and 1 for Ron Paul. Rather they would just announce 20 votes for McCain. Apparently, he felt that uttering Ron Paul's name would be giving Ron Paul too much publicity," said the angry delegate.
"More than one delegate shared the view that control over the delegates speech and movements, along with the ever-present police, seemed somewhat intimidating," said political strategist Mike Baker
"Were it not for the wonderful hospitality of the legion of Minneapolis and St. Paul volunteers and staff who catered to our every whim, this would have been a pretty dismal experience."
"I guarantee you that non of John McCain supporters if there were any were mistreated at the Ron Paul's rally at Target Center in Minneapolis, Minn. This proofs that the Republican Party has lost it's way." added Baker​
 
Last edited:
"Number 2...is not supposed to be the Secretary of Defense..."

:wtf:

Umm, this is puzzling...:confused:

"Among other changes, Goldwater-Nichols streamlined the military chain of command, which now runs from the President through the Secretary of Defense directly to unified combat commanders, bypassing the service chiefs who were assigned an advisory role."

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldwater-Nichols_Act

I'd appreciate any clarification you could provide regarding the above, inasmuch the Goldwater-Nichols Act sure seems to indicate that the Secretary of Defense (or SECDEF if you prefer) is solidly number 2 in the Chain of Command. Or, am I getting my information from questionable sources again? ;)

The way the military works is confusing to many since there are really two parallel organizations, one Administrative and one Operational. Administrative means the "business" side of the sevices, personnel, logistics, training, finance and bugeting, etc etc etc. this is headed the Secretary of Defense to each service secretary. Combined, this ADMINISTRATIVE command is called the Department of Defense or DoD.

The Operational side of the military is run by the "Defense Department" From the President to the Chairman of the JCS to each Service Chief (ie: Chief of Naval Operations) for day in-day out operations of our fighting forces.......HOWEVER, for the purposes of control of each operation , control is vested to a Joint Operational Field Commander, who is directed by the President "through" the Secretary of Defense.....command doesn't flow "to" the Secretary of Defense but "through" the Secretary of Defense "to" the field Commander.....confusing,I know. The SecDef, who by law is a civilian, cannnot originate orders as someone "in" the chain of command can, only pass them on....or at least this is the way it is supposed to work. During an "Operation" the JCS and it's Chaiman become advisors to the JOFC and the President.

To confuse matters even worse is the concept of National Command Authority. This strictly refers to control of nuclear weapons. This authority is vested jointly with the President and the Secretary of Defense, obviously to keep the President from going nuts and launching a unilateral nuclear attack on his own.

This is very confusing to most ...when I was first ordered to the Pentagon in 1987 I was sent to a 5 day school just to learn how this all worked.
 
Last edited:
The way the military works is confusing to many since there are really two parallel organizations, one Administrative and one Operational. Administrative means the "business" side of the sevices, personnel, logistics, training, finance and bugeting, etc etc etc. this is headed the Secretary of Defense to each service secretary. Combined, this ADMINISTRATIVE command is called the Department of Defense or DoD.

The Operational side of the military is run by the "Defense Department" From the President to the Chairman of the JCS to each Service Chief (ie: Chief of Naval Operations) for day in-day out operations of our fighting forces.......
HOWEVER, for the purposes of control of each operation , control is vested to a Joint Operational Field Commander, who is directed by the President "through" the Secretary of Defense.....command doesn't flow "to" the Secretary of Defense but "through" the Secretary of Defense "to" the field Commander.....confusing,I know. The SecDef, who by law is a civilian, cannnot originate orders as someone "in" the chain of command can, only pass them on....or at least this is the way it is supposed to work. During an "Operation" the JCS and it's Chaiman become advisors to the JOFC and the President.

To confuse matters even worse is the concept of National Command Authority. This strictly refers to control of nuclear weapons. This authority is vested jointly with the President and the Secretary of Defense, obviously to keep the President from going nuts and launching a unilateral nuclear attack on his own.

This is very confusing to most ...when I was first ordered to the Pentagon in 1987 I was sent to a 5 day school just to learn how this all worked.

Thanks for the response. I understand the part regarding the service secretaries and the administrative side of things, but still not sure I fully grasp the operational side.

I also understand the part about the role of Joint Operational Field Commanders. Seems a really tortured path, brimming with nuance, tho, regarding the "through" vs. "to" regarding the SecDef's participation in an operation...

Wouldn't the Secretary of Defense be surprised to learn that he can be bypassed by the President going directly to the Chairman of the JCS? I'm not sure that's the way things worked when Mr. Rumsfeld was Secretary of Defense...

Also: "The Secretary of Defense is the principal defense policy advisor to the President and is responsible for the formulation of general defense policy and policy related to all matters of direct and primary concern to the DoD, and for the execution of approved policy. Under the direction of the President, the Secretary exercises authority, direction, and control over the Department of Defense."

Source: http://www.defenselink.mil/odam/omp/pubs/GuideBook/DoD.htm#Secretary of Defense

Guess I'm having a bit of trouble grasping how the Secretary "...exercises control..." -- but somehow (according to your post) doesn't.

Would you be able to point me to a really good reference to help me clear up my confusion?
 
She's a religious fruit loop. You didn't know this ?

~VDR

No, I never even heard of her until she was selected. I'm basically a live and let live type when it comes to religion. I'm atheist, but I figure whatever gets someone through this life is their business. However, when I saw this video I thought to myself, those people are nuts!
 
Thanks for the response. I understand the part regarding the service secretaries and the administrative side of things, but still not sure I fully grasp the operational side.

I also understand the part about the role of Joint Operational Field Commanders. Seems a really tortured path, brimming with nuance, tho, regarding the "through" vs. "to" regarding the SecDef's participation in an operation...

Wouldn't the Secretary of Defense be surprised to learn that he can be bypassed by the President going directly to the Chairman of the JCS? I'm not sure that's the way things worked when Mr. Rumsfeld was Secretary of Defense...

Also: "The Secretary of Defense is the principal defense policy advisor to the President and is responsible for the formulation of general defense policy and policy related to all matters of direct and primary concern to the DoD, and for the execution of approved policy. Under the direction of the President, the Secretary exercises authority, direction, and control over the Department of Defense."

Source: http://www.defenselink.mil/odam/omp/pubs/GuideBook/DoD.htm#Secretary of Defense

Guess I'm having a bit of trouble grasping how the Secretary "...exercises control..." -- but somehow (according to your post) doesn't.

Would you be able to point me to a really good reference to help me clear up my confusion?


Please read my post over. The Department of Defense is the ADMINISTRATIVE function of the military...and yes SecDef does excersize control of the administration of the military, but not the OPERATION COMMAND AND CONTROL which is the Defense Department...a different chain, outsiders are often puzzeled and think DoD and the Defense Department are one and the same.

If you read my post you would see that it took 5 days of schooling (and about six months ojt) for me to understand the organization. There is no textbook.

Hopefully this link will help. The solid flowchart lines are the administrative control, the dashes are the Operational control.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:US_National_Command.png

Let me try to give an example of the way this works

President Orders "Bomb Bagdad" ...orders are sent to the Operational Chain thu JCS to the Joint Commander. JCS develops the plan to bomb using an aircraft carrier in conjunction with the Joint commander and goes up thru the administrative chain to SecDef requesting additional aircraft parts and 500,000 gals of avgas to support the operation. JCS member CNO (Chief of Naval Operations) orders the USS Neversail into position in the Persian Gulf. SecDef orders Navairsyscom to supply the parts and Navalex (logistics command) to supply the gasoline and provides funding for each organization. Field Commander decides he needs additional troops for mop up operations so he goes up his administrative chain to SecDef who orders NavPers to transfer 500 marines from Quantico to the "theater of operations" SecDef simultaneously orders Bupers to activate 500 Marine
reserves to backfill Quantico's losses. and then orders Transport Command to Fly the Marines to the theater...have I lost you yet?

As I said in my earlier post there have been attempts by SecDef ( noteably Rumsfeld)to increase authority and gain more power thru administrative directive....but the chart shows how the law has it set up. Current law prohibits either the SecDef or the Chairman JCS from having executive (operational) control over the combatant forces, hypothetically, this helps to prevent a military takeover of the US Government. That's why only the President can issue orders directly to the operatiional forces, but they go "through" the SecDef or The JCS. Policy and Command Control are two different things. Example of Policy: Don't fire until fired upon.
 
Last edited:
Well, the McCain campaign finally took a chance and let her take an interview. Charles Gibson of ABC flew up to Alaska and sat down with Sarah Palin. Now Charles is an astute journalist and a thoughtful, albeit gentle and patient interviewer. But Sarah's lack of understanding, coached responses, and all-to-casual saber rattling clearly pi$$ed Mr. Gibson off. Half way through the interview he was wagging his foot and becoming shifty in his chair -- because delving any deeper into the kiddie pool that is Sarah Palin's brain would have seemed mean-spirited, sexist, or at least angered McCain into not giving him any more interviews this campaign season.

That's cool. At least this way he'll have the opportunity to tear into her later in the campaign.

Combine the light-weightedness of Mrs. Palin, McCain's complete horsesh*t ad campaign, and his inability to defend his tactics on The View (a women's morning show), and you have a real winner for a candidate...

~VDR
 
Last edited:
I too found the Palin/Obama Gibson interviews a more clear example of Gibson's
political bias than an exposure of any candidate's qualities. The purpose of the two
interviews was quite obviously to make one candidate look good and the other bad.

Standing alone, neither interview was grotesquely biased. But the fanboy
Larry-King-style softballs Gibson lobbed at Obama now contrast quite strongly
with the condescending and leading questions aimed at Palin.

Personal favs from each...

Gibson To Obama: "I watched closely your countenance last night, your mien,
as you stood in that hall. You didn't smile much. Has the joyfulness of this hit
home yet? Do you take joy from it?"


Translation from Left-speak: Obamessiah, I realize that I'm unworthy, but will
you please unzip so I can blow you on national TV?

No questions about Jeremiah Wright, Tony Rezko, the Chicago political machine,
William Ayers, or foreign policy. No factual errors or out-of-context quotations to
bicker over. Just a typical incestuous leftist relationship between reporter and
politician. Hillary and You, You and Hillary, blah, blah, How's the family, blah,
blah, Thanks for coming. You can thank me later for avoiding all topics which
might have embarrassed or made you think.

Gibson To Palin: "And you didn't say to yourself, "Am I experienced enough?
Am I ready? Do I know enough about international affairs? Do I -- will I feel
comfortable enough on the national stage to do this?"

Palin: "I didn't hesitate, no. "

Gibson To Palin: "Didn't that take some hubris?"


Translation from Left-speak: Don't you know you're place, little girl? Who do you
think you are, you Ignorant Red State Trash?

Bottom line: Palin avoided the deadly soundbite-traps Gibson laid out with so
much relish. Therefore, she passed her first test and annoyed Gibson greatly.
(not to mention a bunch of hypocrtitical feminists <cough>Oprah<cough>).

As is typical in presidential elections, my vote was going against the anti-America,
anti-freedom, globalist Left. But for the first time in my life, Palin means I can
actually vote for a candidate. Sarah Palin is the first truly likeable politician
at the national level since Kinky Friedman. Perhaps I won't have to hold my
nose in the booth this year. Very ballsy and well done, Mr McCain.
 
Another interesting angle...Thanks for the review Brian !!
 
Paranoia

Yep, in the minds of some people, paranoia reigns supreme!

"Liberal Media!" "Liberal Media!" :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Same kind of BS that gave us George Bush -- not that members of his own party are nowadays even willing to acknowledge his existence...:D
 
Last edited:
The truth hurts...

"John McCain says he's about change, too -- except for economic policy, health care policy, tax policy, education policy, foreign policy and Karl Rove-style politics," Mr. Obama told his supporters here. "That's just calling the same thing something different."

~VDR
 
It cracks me up. Everytime republican candidates look bad, it's always the fault of the "liberal" media. So, is the Army Times a liberal newspaper? Check out what they wrote about McCain...

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/09/defense_mccain_FCS_091208/

McCain on FCS: Flip-flop or fib?

By Bradley Peniston - Staff writer
Posted : Saturday Sep 13, 2008 6:58:20 EDT

Has Sen. John McCain renounced his longtime antagonism toward the Army’s Future Combat Systems?

On Sept. 8, the Republican presidential candidate told a rally crowd in Lee’s Summit, Mo., about an Obama video message to a liberal advocacy group.

“He promised them he would, quote, ‘slow our development of Future Combat Systems,’” McCain said, according to wire reports. “This is not a time to slow our development of Future Combat Systems.”

Flashback to July, however, when his campaign furnished McCain’s economic plan to The Washington Post, declaring that “there are lots of procurements — Airborne Laser, [C-17] Globemaster, Future Combat System [sic] — that should be ended and the entire Pentagon budget should be scrubbed.”

In fact, McCain has long criticized the over-budget, behind-schedule FCS program. In 2005, he blasted the Army for allowing the program to balloon to $161 billion, and forced the service to rewrite the main FCS contract.

So where does McCain really stand? Some bloggers and analysts have suggested that he used the term “future combat systems” generically. Obama’s campaign maintains their candidate was speaking specifically about FCS, in which case McCain may be twisting his rival’s words.

Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute called it deceitful.

“McCain’s interpretation of Obama’s position is typical of the way in which the Republicans have twisted Democratic views in order to undercut their opponents and at the same time obscure the past positions of the Republicans,” Thompson said. “Future Combat Systems is the centerpiece of Army modernization. However, McCain has been more critical of it than anyone else in the chamber. Obama has been much more detailed and thoughtful in his comments about future military investment than McCain’s very superficial statements.”

Officials with the McCain campaign did not return phone calls and emails requesting clarification.

What Obama said

McCain was quoting from a campaign video message from Obama to a liberal group that seeks to cut Pentagon funds by 15 percent.

“I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending,” Obama said in the video, recorded earlier this year. “I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems. I will not weaponize space. I will slow our development of Future Combat Systems.”

F. Whitten Peters, a defense adviser for the Obama campaign and former secretary of the Air Force, confirmed that the Democratic candidate was talking about the Army program.

“Obama had said that he wanted to review FCS and he thought that he might want to slow the fielding,” Peters said. “His feeling is there really needs to be an overall strategic review of larger weapon programs to decide which ones are sufficiently important to keep going and which ones may need to be scaled back.”


Antonie Boessenkool contributed to this report.
 
Brian,

I have to disagree with your assessment of the "inherent bias" of these interviews. I think you are viewing them through your own biased filter to make that determination.

No questions about Jeremiah Wright, Tony Rezko, the Chicago political machine, William Ayers, or foreign policy.

The truth is, only one of those issues (foreign policy) actually matters to the majority of the American voting public. Wright is a pastor, for Chrissakes. Who cares what he has to say or what Obama has to say about him? And the links between Obama and Rezko or Ayers are tenuous at best. There is no evidence that his association with either of them was very close or that he was involved in any of their wrongdoing. So it is no surprise that at this point in the election cycle, the media is not focusing on them.

And while we are on the subject of what wasn't asked, I notice Gibson didn't ask Palin about TrooperGate, about earmarks, about her views on teaching creationism in public schools, or about her attempts to have books banned in her hometown library. So I guess he went pretty light on her in some areas, too.

Obama's interview was made before he had picked a VP candidate, so a lot of the questioning centered around that issue, understandably. And don't even pretend that asking him about Hillary was not a hardball question. This was a very difficult issue for Obama to deal with at the time. He had to be very careful and ginger on this subject, but that didn't stop Gibson from asking about it and continuing to hammer on it.

Obviously, the pick of Palin for VP shows a stark lack of experience at the National and International level, and 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, so it didn't make a lot of sense to ask him about those issues.

I also got some news for you Brian. Folks on the left are, for the most part, just as pro-america and pro-freedom as you are. They just have a different conception of how to achieve the goals we all aspire to. By following the Bush example of questioning the patriotism of everyone who disagrees with you on policy, you really demean the value of your opinions.

As for Palin, from what I have read about her time as Mayor of Wasilla, and from what I have seen of her fundamentalist religious nature, I don't find her likable as a candidate in the least. And I have no faith in her ability to do anything except work for the best interests of the big oil corporations.

Tell me, do you think Palin will be brave enough to appear on the O'Reilly Factor? Obama was.
 
I know that focusing on Sarah Palin is unfair... but the McCain campaign seems to want to distract everybody from his lack of vision by having us do just that. So in keeping with that, here's a video of Matt Damon discussing the Palin issue:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anxkrm9uEJk

I'm sure that the next post will contain some criticism of "liberal Hollywood types", but please rebut with a little more thoughtfulness.

~VDR
 

Latest posts

Back
Top