John McCain
- Thread starter 2020hindsight
- Start date
-
- Tags
- john mccain
In the next four weeks, what drama will replace the economy? McCain's camp has ideas:
1. Its emphasis on his biography as a war hero, experienced lawmaker and straight-talking maverick is insufficient to close a growing gap with Obama.
2. They're also eager to move the conversation away from the economy, an issue that strongly favors Obama and has helped him to a lead in many recent polls.
3. "We're going to get a little tougher," a senior Republican operative said. "We've got to question this guy's associations. Very soon. There's no question that we have to change the subject here."
Being so aggressive has risks for McCain if it angers swing voters, who often say they are looking for candidates who offer a positive message about what they will do.
Moments after the House approved the bailout package, the McCain campaign released an ad that challenges Obama's honesty and asks, "Who is Barack Obama?"
The ad alleges that "Senator Obama voted 94 times for higher taxes. Ninety-four times. He's not truthful on taxes."
This charge has been called misleading by independent fact-checkers, who have noted that the majority of those votes were on nonbinding budget resolutions.
Don't McCain's people check the Fact Checkers?
I posted this here on ASF yesterday.
... obviously Palin's debate rote was learnt and this Ad made simultaneously!
... obviously good for efficiency but not efficacy!
They'll wait until after Tuesday's debate to decide how and when to release new commercials and continue to cast Obama as a big spender, a high taxer and someone who talks about working across the aisle but doesn't deliver.
Two other top Republicans said the new ads are likely to hammer Obama on his connections to convicted Chicago developer Antoin "Tony" Rezko and former radical William Ayres, whom the McCain campaign regularly calls a domestic terrorist because of his acts of violence against the U.S. government in the 1960s.
Rev. Wright appears to be off limits after McCain condemned the North Carolina Republican Party in April for an ad that linked Obama to his former pastor, saying:
"Unfortunately, all I can do is, in as visible a way as possible, disassociate myself from that kind of campaigning."
"We are looking for a very aggressive last 30 days," said Greg Strimple, one of McCain's top advisers.
"We are looking forward to turning a page on this financial crisis and getting back to discussing Mr. Obama's aggressively liberal record and how he will be too risky for Americans."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/03/AR2008100303738.html?hpid=topnews
1. Its emphasis on his biography as a war hero, experienced lawmaker and straight-talking maverick is insufficient to close a growing gap with Obama.
2. They're also eager to move the conversation away from the economy, an issue that strongly favors Obama and has helped him to a lead in many recent polls.
3. "We're going to get a little tougher," a senior Republican operative said. "We've got to question this guy's associations. Very soon. There's no question that we have to change the subject here."
Being so aggressive has risks for McCain if it angers swing voters, who often say they are looking for candidates who offer a positive message about what they will do.
Moments after the House approved the bailout package, the McCain campaign released an ad that challenges Obama's honesty and asks, "Who is Barack Obama?"
The ad alleges that "Senator Obama voted 94 times for higher taxes. Ninety-four times. He's not truthful on taxes."
This charge has been called misleading by independent fact-checkers, who have noted that the majority of those votes were on nonbinding budget resolutions.
Don't McCain's people check the Fact Checkers?
I posted this here on ASF yesterday.
... obviously Palin's debate rote was learnt and this Ad made simultaneously!
... obviously good for efficiency but not efficacy!
They'll wait until after Tuesday's debate to decide how and when to release new commercials and continue to cast Obama as a big spender, a high taxer and someone who talks about working across the aisle but doesn't deliver.
Two other top Republicans said the new ads are likely to hammer Obama on his connections to convicted Chicago developer Antoin "Tony" Rezko and former radical William Ayres, whom the McCain campaign regularly calls a domestic terrorist because of his acts of violence against the U.S. government in the 1960s.
Rev. Wright appears to be off limits after McCain condemned the North Carolina Republican Party in April for an ad that linked Obama to his former pastor, saying:
"Unfortunately, all I can do is, in as visible a way as possible, disassociate myself from that kind of campaigning."
"We are looking for a very aggressive last 30 days," said Greg Strimple, one of McCain's top advisers.
"We are looking forward to turning a page on this financial crisis and getting back to discussing Mr. Obama's aggressively liberal record and how he will be too risky for Americans."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/03/AR2008100303738.html?hpid=topnews
- Joined
- 28 May 2006
- Posts
- 9,985
- Reactions
- 2
or in other words - we're gonna become aggressive and more negative than normal - (because we've nothing to lose) - but we'll try to somehow infer that Obama is the aggressive one
yep - gloves off - hopefully counter productive.
or in other words - we're gonna become aggressive and more negative than normal - (because we've nothing to lose) - but we'll try to somehow infer that Obama is the aggressive one
yep - gloves off - hopefully counter productive.
The 'town hall' style debate next Wednesday, our time, will be pivotal and a must-see!
Both will sit at a table and answer questions from the floor.
How do folk get to be in the questioning audience?
No doubt each campaign will plant their puppets with inflammatory topics.
I'm not sure how the volunteers are chosen but it seems logical that each would choose their trainees?
Aha... voters, either present at the debate or via the Internet, may pose questions on any topic.
* moderated by Tom Brokaw, special correspondent (and former evening news anchor) for NBC News.
* questions formulated by the town hall participants and
neither the Commission nor the campaigns will review the questions.
The moderator will be solely responsible for selecting the questions that will be asked during the debate, keeping in mind the goals of addressing a wide range of topics during the debate and attempting to spend approximately equal amounts of time on foreign and domestic issues.
The town hall participants will be comprised of uncommitted voters:
The basic procedure is very similar to those used when Gallup conducts a normal poll. Gallup begins with a random probability sample of the area, asks people a series of questions to determine if they qualify as an uncommitted voter and then invites them to be a participant in the debate if they qualify.
- Joined
- 28 May 2006
- Posts
- 9,985
- Reactions
- 2
Doris, your idea of a must-see (must see?) lol -
Whilst I agree with you that it will be worth watching (sometime), gotta feeling that 2 or 3% of Aussies will see it live at best
. Having said that, true, anyone who watches the news Wednesday night will get a few highlights flashed across the screen, with some empty meaningless comment that X or Y won
In summary, this election was the reason video recorders were invented
PS Rats! - we only have one video recorder, and Steve Irwin's movie "Croc Hunter" is on concurrently at noon on Wednesday - at least in Sydney. Maybe I'll watch in on youtubes.
yep - some things never change.... and they usually paint themselves as a convert from a rusted-on supporter lol ...
Like the talkback radio here "Hello Mr Howard / Rudd, I'm normally a Lib/Labor supporter, but the way you've been behaving on workchoice/pensions , I'm going to change sides this election" etc.
Hey, I live in Nashville, where the next debate will be held. I think I'll get into the audience and try to ask a question. I'm a sneaky Republican, so I'll pretend to be "uncommitted". I'll become famous for asking the question that stumps Obama!!!! But, I'll keep that question secret so that Doris won't send him the question in advance. This is going to be fun!!
- Joined
- 15 May 2008
- Posts
- 733
- Reactions
- 2
"Is John McCain a ‘Natural-Born Citizen’?
James Joyner | Thursday, February 28, 2008
John McCain was born on a U.S. Navy base overseas. The NYT’s Carl Hulse has an interesting article about whether McCain is Constitutionally eligible to be president.
Mr. McCain’s likely nomination as the Republican candidate for president and the happenstance of his birth in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936 are reviving a musty debate that has surfaced periodically since the founders first set quill to parchment and declared that only a “natural-born citizen” can hold the nation’s highest office.
Almost since those words were written in 1787 with scant explanation, their precise meaning has been the stuff of confusion, law school review articles, whisper campaigns and civics class debates over whether only those delivered on American soil can be truly natural born. To date, no American to take the presidential oath has had an official birthplace outside the 50 states.
The short answer is that most legal scholars presume someone who was born a citizen, regardless of location, qualifies. But the question has never been tested in court.
That it’s even an issue at this stage is silly. The Founders had a not unreasonable concern in 1789 that the fledgling nation be led by someone with unquestioned loyalty but they made a mistake enshrining that in the Constitution. Now, though, the idea that an Arnold Schwarzenegger or a Henry Kissinger or John Shalikashvili shouldn’t be eligible to run for president is absurd. "
James Joyner | Thursday, February 28, 2008
John McCain was born on a U.S. Navy base overseas. The NYT’s Carl Hulse has an interesting article about whether McCain is Constitutionally eligible to be president.
Mr. McCain’s likely nomination as the Republican candidate for president and the happenstance of his birth in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936 are reviving a musty debate that has surfaced periodically since the founders first set quill to parchment and declared that only a “natural-born citizen” can hold the nation’s highest office.
Almost since those words were written in 1787 with scant explanation, their precise meaning has been the stuff of confusion, law school review articles, whisper campaigns and civics class debates over whether only those delivered on American soil can be truly natural born. To date, no American to take the presidential oath has had an official birthplace outside the 50 states.
The short answer is that most legal scholars presume someone who was born a citizen, regardless of location, qualifies. But the question has never been tested in court.
That it’s even an issue at this stage is silly. The Founders had a not unreasonable concern in 1789 that the fledgling nation be led by someone with unquestioned loyalty but they made a mistake enshrining that in the Constitution. Now, though, the idea that an Arnold Schwarzenegger or a Henry Kissinger or John Shalikashvili shouldn’t be eligible to run for president is absurd. "
From the Politico - a bipartisan political site in America:
McCain camp making news in the morning
Will it be a gamechanger!! or a dud?
Personally, I'm hoping they flip the ticket.
Instead of McCain/Palin
Palin/McCain!!!!!
McCain camp making news in the morning
http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/1008/McCain_camp_making_news_in_the_morning.html
Will it be a gamechanger!! or a dud?
Personally, I'm hoping they flip the ticket.
Instead of McCain/Palin
Palin/McCain!!!!!
Julia
In Memoriam
- Joined
- 10 May 2005
- Posts
- 16,986
- Reactions
- 1,973
Interesting comment. It suggests that your idealistic faith in McCain might be enduring a few doubts?
During the most recent debate his quite nasty side showed when he refused to refer to Senator Obama by name but rather pointed to him and said "that one". Very unpleasant behaviour and said quite a bit about him.
Ms Palin at least was fun, if that's what you're looking for in a VP.
Since 1928, Tennessee has voted for the winning Presidential candidate every time - with the exception of 1960.
We voted Hoover, FDR, FDR, FDR, FDR, Truman, Eisenhour, Eisenhour, Nixon (the exception - Kennedy won), LBJ, Nixon, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Reagan, Bush41, Clinton, Clinton, Bush43, Bush43.
The lastest Rasmussen poll in Tennessee has it McCain 58 Obama 39
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...election_2008_tennessee_presidential_election
For what it is worth.
We voted Hoover, FDR, FDR, FDR, FDR, Truman, Eisenhour, Eisenhour, Nixon (the exception - Kennedy won), LBJ, Nixon, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Reagan, Bush41, Clinton, Clinton, Bush43, Bush43.
The lastest Rasmussen poll in Tennessee has it McCain 58 Obama 39
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...election_2008_tennessee_presidential_election
For what it is worth.
A lot of people have been asking how McCain can legally get away with his lies and his Hitler-style rally frenzies.
At last, the Secret Service seems to have put an end to it.
McCain's tongue must hurt being stuck in his cheek:
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jxHUZ-vz0qO7-XDTuwaMb3l6Pi5Q
At last, the Secret Service seems to have put an end to it.
McCain's tongue must hurt being stuck in his cheek:
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jxHUZ-vz0qO7-XDTuwaMb3l6Pi5Q
Only Sadness about Troopergate
Palin violated state ethics law prohibiting public officials from using their office for private gain.
- It's not surprising that a government official would use her power to advance a personal grudge.
- Nor that Palin would deny that personal matters were a factor in her decision to fire Monegan.
- Nor is it surprising, really, that Palin would refuse to cooperate with an investigation after she had said she would.
- Nor that Palin would go around the country claiming that Obama is the one who can't be trusted.
. Maybe I'm too jaded to care about any of this.
What is sad is:
- McCain selected this woman to run as his vice-presidential candidate
- he built a campaign around her as it became obvious that she was unfit for the office, breying "Country First."
Give him the benefit of the doubt that when he selected her he didn't believe the Troopergate charges.
But later he:
- condoned her attempts at cover-up
- sanctioned and repeated her intimations that Obama was somehow invidiously associated with a domestic terrorist.
Sure, McCain and Palin both said (one with a wink) the issue was whether Obama was being truthful.
But they both knew that they were stoking flames of hatred toward Obama and trying to brand him as traitorous.
Today, finally, McCain attempted to restore some of his honor by rejecting a woman's statement at a rally accusing Obama of being an "Arab"...code for terrorist. This is the John McCain I used to admire.
* It's the McCain who rejected hatred toward Mexican immigrants, even those illegally here.
* It's the McCain who made the mistake of lying for personal ambition in 2000 but publicly admitted it and moved on.
John McCain could have engaged in an extended, thoughtful campaign against Democrat Obama by talking about national defense, the war in Iraq, and economic turmoil.
But he didn't choose to do this.
After a long and interesting life with much service and sacrifice, John McCain's legacy will be tainted by his willingness to allow an unworthy surrogate to suggest that an opponent is a traitor.
http://voices.kansascity.com/node/2381
Palin violated state ethics law prohibiting public officials from using their office for private gain.
- It's not surprising that a government official would use her power to advance a personal grudge.
- Nor that Palin would deny that personal matters were a factor in her decision to fire Monegan.
- Nor is it surprising, really, that Palin would refuse to cooperate with an investigation after she had said she would.
- Nor that Palin would go around the country claiming that Obama is the one who can't be trusted.
. Maybe I'm too jaded to care about any of this.
What is sad is:
- McCain selected this woman to run as his vice-presidential candidate
- he built a campaign around her as it became obvious that she was unfit for the office, breying "Country First."
Give him the benefit of the doubt that when he selected her he didn't believe the Troopergate charges.
But later he:
- condoned her attempts at cover-up
- sanctioned and repeated her intimations that Obama was somehow invidiously associated with a domestic terrorist.
Sure, McCain and Palin both said (one with a wink) the issue was whether Obama was being truthful.
But they both knew that they were stoking flames of hatred toward Obama and trying to brand him as traitorous.
Today, finally, McCain attempted to restore some of his honor by rejecting a woman's statement at a rally accusing Obama of being an "Arab"...code for terrorist. This is the John McCain I used to admire.
* It's the McCain who rejected hatred toward Mexican immigrants, even those illegally here.
* It's the McCain who made the mistake of lying for personal ambition in 2000 but publicly admitted it and moved on.
John McCain could have engaged in an extended, thoughtful campaign against Democrat Obama by talking about national defense, the war in Iraq, and economic turmoil.
But he didn't choose to do this.
After a long and interesting life with much service and sacrifice, John McCain's legacy will be tainted by his willingness to allow an unworthy surrogate to suggest that an opponent is a traitor.
http://voices.kansascity.com/node/2381
Garpal Gumnut
Ross Island Hotel
- Joined
- 2 January 2006
- Posts
- 13,361
- Reactions
- 9,515
What America needs now is someone with the balls to sort out all this mess not some glorified social worker like Obama.
McCain I predict will pull another rabbit out of the hat before polling day and get over the line.
gg
McCain I predict will pull another rabbit out of the hat before polling day and get over the line.
gg
GG... So you obviously don't think Palin is that one!
You're on the money - a social worker is the last person you'd want to have as POTUS!
Obama was and is a community organizer - not a social worker. Remember?
Still - he's someone working for the people - not the lobbyists and PACs.
You're right - you'd think the guys who 'screened' Palin would have a plan B, C, D... just in case!
Even McCain is gettin Palin's poor enunciation skills! As well as her Seducer ploys!Who is he gonna fool again?
There's no fooler like an old fool!
Garpal Gumnut
Ross Island Hotel
- Joined
- 2 January 2006
- Posts
- 13,361
- Reactions
- 9,515
GG... So you obviously don't think Palin is that one!
You're on the money - a social worker is the last person you'd want to have as POTUS!
Obama was and is a community organizer - not a social worker. Remember?
Still - he's someone working for the people - not the lobbyists and PACs.
You'd think the guys who 'screened' Palin would have a plan B... just in case.
Who is he gonna fool again?
There's no fooler like an old fool!
Well Doris, let me go through your points one by one,
Sarah Palin, I would agree and I would be very surprised if she had anatomical testes, but she has balls, she is ballsy, and has the balls if needs be to steer that country through its present travails, deal with foreign threats, economic and domestic issues.
Obama has testes, but I don't believe he has the balls to be President.
McCain has balls and has the balls to to be a very good president.
Poor old Joe, well lets just say he probably has testes.
A community organiser to me is a glorified social worker and no amount of argument will change my mind. He was also a professor and I've lived beside a professor and they are not all that smart.
As to Sarah Palin's accent , enunciation, it is always a source of wonder to me how the left always stigmatise folk according to their accent. I do not think how people pronounce or phrase their speech should be a subject for character assessment.
I bet Abe Lincoln was a good ole boy when it came to droppin his dees and aitches.
Seduction can be sexual or asexual. As I've said on the Palin thread, it is a normal ploy of all politicians. barack does it to women and left men , Sarah does it to men and working class women, John does it to conservative men and women, and poor old Joe. Well ....... his dog loves him.
The agesim of the left in this debate is something I will only point out, and not comment further on.
Surprise is a military tactic, and I would not be surprised if an old soldier like JMcC did not pull a rabbit out of the hat.
So enjoy your polls, and sweat on it , it looks as if Obama will win, but I for one would not bet on it.
McCain has the balls to be President and Palin has the balls to be VP.
gg
All due respect GG, but you also predicted Howard would come home with a wet sail against all odds and trounce Rudd. I think you may need to change the plugs and points on your crystal ball. As the bookies were indicating at the time, he didn't have a prayer and as it turned out, wasn't even capable of winning his own seat. With the bookies indicating it will be a hiding to nothing, it might be time to "follow the money", regardless of your political persuasions. Centrebet has Obama at $1.13 and McCain at $5.50. Other agencies are offering similar odds. These odds don't suggest it's in "Obama's favour on balance'. They suggest it's done and dusted. I can't recall an election at any time or any place where the bookies got it that far wrong. With Palin increasingly being exposed as thick as a brick and corrupt to boot, it's time for McCain to join Johnny at the bingo, presuming he doesn't have to use a keyboard.
Having the 'balls' or the ticker for the job is important, but let's face it, neither Obama, McCain, Palin or Biden would be in the hot seat for the top job if they lacked tenacity. Think of the leaders over the last century you hold in highest regard. They all had balls. Similarly, at the other extreme, are Hitler, Pol Pot, Mugabe and Stalin as examples of leaders who also had balls. It takes a hell of a lot more than courage to lead a country successfully.
You refer to Palin being able to deal with foreign, domestic and economic issues. Seriously, you must have seen her interviews or read the transcripts. She can't understand any of it. Even conservative commentators in the US are openly stating she is way out of her league. I think you need to develop a bit of objectivity. I'm obviously of the left, but I can at least recognise when the left throws up a galah.
- Joined
- 15 May 2008
- Posts
- 733
- Reactions
- 2
Undernews For October 6, 2008
Tuesday, 7 October 2008, 4:46 pm
Column: Undernews
DID MCCAIN FUDGE HIS INCOME TAX RETURN?
Martha Miller, Huffington Post - I am a tax attorney, so a tax return means more to me than it would to most. I reviewed McCain's tax returns as a basic check on the candidates. You can look at McCain's 2006 and 2007 tax returns for yourself. The tax returns are below a lot of verbiage about his charitable activities.
According to a New York Times article of September 27, 2008 "For McCain and Team, a Host of Ties to Gambling," reported by Jo Becker and Don VanNatta Jr., McCain gambled at the MGM Grand in May 2007. Apparently McCain is a habitual gambler; he usually plays craps. He even says, "I am a gambling man."
Gambling has tax implications. According to IRS Publication 17, "Your Federal Income Tax", 2007 edition, page 89 "Gambling Winnings. You must include your gambling winnings in income on Form 1040, line 21. If you itemize your deductions on Schedule A (Form 1040), you can deduct gambling losses you had during the year, but only up to the amount of your winnings." In other words, you can't subtract your losses from your winnings and just not report. You have to report the winnings, and then claim the losses.
But McCain's tax returns say nothing about gambling winnings or losses.
As a casino gambler, McCain is likely to have lost more than he won. But by not reporting his winnings, the different percentage calculations built into the tax calculation are thrown off, and if he gambled much at all, he has underpaid his tax. The amount of understatement of tax may be minimal, but that's not the point.
The real purpose of preparing his tax return and omitting the gambling winnings is so that people would not know how much he gambled. If he won $200,000 playing craps in Las Vegas, it would make a difference in the way voters viewed his suitability as a presidential candidate.
There are circumstances under which the tax returns could be correct, such as McCain gambled once in 2007, not at all in 2006, and lost everything the one time he gambled. Such an explanation is unlikely in light of McCain's alleged long history of gambling.
Stephen Rose, Huffington Post - McCain is a documented craps player. He has been known to play craps on impulse for 14 hours at a stretch. . .
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0810/S00104.htm
Tuesday, 7 October 2008, 4:46 pm
Column: Undernews
DID MCCAIN FUDGE HIS INCOME TAX RETURN?
Martha Miller, Huffington Post - I am a tax attorney, so a tax return means more to me than it would to most. I reviewed McCain's tax returns as a basic check on the candidates. You can look at McCain's 2006 and 2007 tax returns for yourself. The tax returns are below a lot of verbiage about his charitable activities.
According to a New York Times article of September 27, 2008 "For McCain and Team, a Host of Ties to Gambling," reported by Jo Becker and Don VanNatta Jr., McCain gambled at the MGM Grand in May 2007. Apparently McCain is a habitual gambler; he usually plays craps. He even says, "I am a gambling man."
Gambling has tax implications. According to IRS Publication 17, "Your Federal Income Tax", 2007 edition, page 89 "Gambling Winnings. You must include your gambling winnings in income on Form 1040, line 21. If you itemize your deductions on Schedule A (Form 1040), you can deduct gambling losses you had during the year, but only up to the amount of your winnings." In other words, you can't subtract your losses from your winnings and just not report. You have to report the winnings, and then claim the losses.
But McCain's tax returns say nothing about gambling winnings or losses.
As a casino gambler, McCain is likely to have lost more than he won. But by not reporting his winnings, the different percentage calculations built into the tax calculation are thrown off, and if he gambled much at all, he has underpaid his tax. The amount of understatement of tax may be minimal, but that's not the point.
The real purpose of preparing his tax return and omitting the gambling winnings is so that people would not know how much he gambled. If he won $200,000 playing craps in Las Vegas, it would make a difference in the way voters viewed his suitability as a presidential candidate.
There are circumstances under which the tax returns could be correct, such as McCain gambled once in 2007, not at all in 2006, and lost everything the one time he gambled. Such an explanation is unlikely in light of McCain's alleged long history of gambling.
Stephen Rose, Huffington Post - McCain is a documented craps player. He has been known to play craps on impulse for 14 hours at a stretch. . .
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0810/S00104.htm
