You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: New McCain Speech acknowledges Obama as DNC nominee
By LIBBY QUAID, Associated Press Writer
7 minutes ago
Republican John McCain welcomed Democrat Barack Obama to the fall campaign for the White House on Tuesday with a blistering attack on his judgment and a charge that he "voted to deny funds to the soldiers who have done a brilliant and brave job" in Iraq.
"Americans ought to be concerned about the judgment of a presidential candidate who says he's ready to talk, in person and without conditions, with tyrants from Havana to Pyongyang, but hasn't traveled to Iraq to meet with General (David) Petraeus, and see for himself the progress he threatens to reverse," McCain said as his rival wrapped up the Democratic nomination.
McCain cast Obama, a first-term Illinois senator, as lacking the experience and discretion to be a wartime commander in chief, and he argued the Democrat's calls for a troop withdrawal from Iraq would imperil the United States.
The Arizona senator mocked Obama's promise of change for a country weary of the status quo, uttering the word "change" no fewer than 33 times.
"He is an impressive man who makes a great first impression," McCain said. "But he hasn't been willing to make the tough calls, to challenge his party, to risk criticism from his supporters, to bring real change to Washington. I have."
In a speech intended to mark the start of the general election, the Republican defended himself against Obama's frequent claim that McCain is "running for President Bush's third term" because McCain supports the Iraq war and wants to extend the president's tax cuts.
Voters don't buy it, McCain said.
"The American people didn't get to know me yesterday, as they are just getting to know Senator Obama," McCain said. "They know I have a long record of bipartisan problem solving. They've seen me put our country before any president, before any party, before any special interest, before my own interest."
McCain sought to distance himself from Bush by delivering the speech in New Orleans, a city whose ravages from Hurricane Katrina became a glaring symbol of Bush administration incompetence. The Arizona senator campaigned here six weeks ago, vowing that such a disaster would never again be handled in such a disgraceful way.
He contrasted his views on global warming and energy independence with those of Bush, and he criticized Obama for voting for Bush's energy bill, which he said gave more breaks to the oil industry.
"I opposed it because I know we won't achieve energy independence by repeating the mistakes of the last half century. That's not change we can believe in," McCain said, once again evoking Obama's campaign theme.
McCain wrapped up the GOP nomination in March and since then has laid the groundwork for the general election campaign while Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton kept up their lengthy primary fight. On Tuesday, with Obama finally assured of the Democratic Party nod, McCain made his speech during prime time to try to steal some of Obama's thunder.
McCain shared the stage with Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, who is frequently mentioned as a potential running mate. Jindal and several others spent the Memorial Day holiday at McCain's compound in Sedona, Ariz.
"A lot of people have been speculating about that," Jindal said as he warmed up a crowd of about 600 people. "I can tell you the secret now: John is a great cook."
In the speech, McCain laid out his core argument, that he has a record of working for reform and offers the kind of change that the country needs, while Obama makes empty promises of a new direction and offers the wrong kind of change.
"No matter who wins this election, the direction of this country is going to change dramatically," McCain said. "But the choice is between the right change and the wrong change; between going forward and going backward."
The Navy veteran and former Vietnam prisoner of war noted that Obama opposed the troop-increase strategy that has been credited with helping to curb violence, and he pointedly accused Obama of withholding money from troops.
"Senator Obama opposed the new strategy, and, after promising not to, voted to deny funds to the soldiers who have done a brilliant and brave job of carrying it out," McCain said.
A year ago, Obama voted against a funding bill for the Iraq war because it lacked a timetable for withdrawing troops. At the time, Obama said the bill would give Bush "a blank check to continue down this same, disastrous path."
Obama had previously opposed a deadline for troop withdrawal but shifted under pressure from liberal Democrats to seek a withdrawal of combat troops by the end of 2009. In contrast, McCain is an ardent supporter of the war and opposes a quick pullout.
Obama has also said he'd be willing to meet without preconditions with leaders of countries such as Cuba and North Korea.
In many ways, the fall campaign has already begun. The Democratic National Committee has been in general election mode for months, airing national ads against McCain, shadowing his campaign events and conducting a rapid-response program.
-------
I'm sorry, but this is so right on the money for me. I was a McCain supporter in 2000 and gladly backed Bush in 2000 and 2004, but I haven't felt that a leader had it this "right" in a long time. If Hillary and Obama do team up, there's no way this man will be President, but god willing, I really believe John McCain could be one of the greatest presidents of our time.
Re: New McCain Speech acknowledges Obama as DNC nominee
The McCain destruction of Obama begins....
Hillary isn't even gonna save Obama. The illusion of that "dream ticket" is dead. Obama has way too much baggage and the only way he will set foot in the White House is if he is there on the occasions MCain signs a bill in to law co sponsored by Obama.
The only way the "dream ticket" would have worked is if Obama was in the VP slot.
I'm not a McCain fan whatsoever and I'm pretty much ready to call him president.
He's already sealed the deal. He's going to kill Obama in the debates.
For Obama's sake, he better have a Reagan-esque rebuttal ready for when McCain looks Obama in the eye onstage and says, "a couple years ago, you said you wouldn't run in 2008 because you don't have enough experience. How much experience did you gain in such a short amount of time to change your mind?"
Or how about, "Senator Obama, while american troops are dying for their country, why do you refuse to wear an american flag or show any respect whatsoever when it comes to patriotic issues?"
Or, "Senator Obama, you have stated several times your desire to go into Pakistan to get Bin Laden. How do you plan on doing this without causing a nuclear spark in the region?"
Or, "you say you are willing to pull out of Iraq and go back in if it gets bad. Can you not see the power vacuum created by attempting such a fiasco?"
This election is over.
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: New McCain Speech acknowledges Obama as DNC nominee
I hope you're right
I know I'm right. I go visit my grandma sometimes, and she is into politics hardcore. Watches the news all the time. She's a lifelong democrat, and is also saying McCain has already won, and said she'd probably have to vote for him, or stay home.
This is going to happen across the country.
Everyone remember those "Reagan democrats"? Thought they were a faded memory?
Nope. They were just hibernating.....
On election day when people walk in to that booth, a percentage of even hardcore liberals are gonna secretly vote for McCain.
Re: New McCain Speech acknowledges Obama as DNC nominee
One other thing that makes the Obama nomination a joke is the fact that for weeks everyone knew he was gonna be the nominee, yet democrats kept voting in droves for Hillary until the very last minute.
That would have been like Bill Clinton wrapping up the nomination in 92, yet the majority keep voting for Paul Tsongas.
He's not going to win.
Re: New McCain Speech acknowledges Obama as DNC nominee
The McCain destruction of Obama begins....
Are you sure about that James?? I saw this part on the news:
"Americans ought to be concerned about the judgment of a presidential candidate who says he's ready to talk, in person and without conditions, with tyrants from Havana to Pyongyang, but hasn't traveled to Iraq to meet with General (David) Petraeus, and see for himself the progress he threatens to reverse," McCain said as his rival wrapped up the Democratic nomination.
... and almost fell asleep as he was saying it. Seriously, it was the most unmotivating, useless political bs info & there seemed to be about 25 people cheering in the crowd as he was saying it (I'll look for it on youtube). A bunch of hardcore Republicans susceptable to fear tactics. Maybe he should choose Tom Ridge, so this country can go back to code orange this weekend, then down to code yellow, then code orange agian.
RF do you really think Obama is going to call the shots himself, and possibly not take info from people like Head of the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee Joe Biden, or possibly someone he'll place in his cabinet like Jim Webb or General Wesley Clarke?? Men who have loads of international experience! They are called ADVISORS for a reason. I could get into Bush's "Advisors" (ie Dick Cheney ie Haliburton) and the trillions spent & made by 'certain people'. But I won't.
RF I know you're diehard Republican, and I don't have a problem with that. You have you're reasons and upbringing, I have mine. That's what makes this country great. Look at the 'Greatest Presidents' thread, some have been Dem, some GOP. (FDR, Reagan, Nixon, Clinton) but James, you cannot seriously believe in any way this election is "over"??! I mean, at the very least it's tied, possibly one of them is leading by a few points. Personally I don't think polls will count until about August, & even then it is only relevant state by state, not national.
Re: New McCain Speech acknowledges Obama as DNC nominee
I don't take polls into consideration unless they are exit polls. The polls will fluctuate on both sides until November regardless of who wins and by how much. It happens in EVERY election, the notable exception being the Reagan-Mondale landslide.
Yeah, I think its over. McCain has never been a great speaker, and wont improve in the near future. His weak opposition is what secures him the presidency.
Obama's "change" platform is nothing but tax and spend bullshit, and we've went to that well too many times already.
Not only am I shocked the GOP hitched their wagon to McCain, I am even more shocked that the dems fell for Obama's spell.
Had people known a year ago that Obama would be the dem nominee, every single republican would have entered the race.
If Obama/Hillary winds up being the "dream ticket", this right here is gonna be the winning ticket....
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: New McCain Speech acknowledges Obama as DNC nominee
James Lofton wrote:The McCain destruction of Obama begins....
Are you sure about that James?? I saw this part on the news:
Randall Flagg wrote:"Americans ought to be concerned about the judgment of a presidential candidate who says he's ready to talk, in person and without conditions, with tyrants from Havana to Pyongyang, but hasn't traveled to Iraq to meet with General (David) Petraeus, and see for himself the progress he threatens to reverse," McCain said as his rival wrapped up the Democratic nomination.
... and almost fell asleep as he was saying it. Seriously, it was the most unmotivating, useless political bs info & there seemed to be about 25 people cheering in the crowd as he was saying it (I'll look for it on youtube). A bunch of hardcore Republicans susceptable to fear tactics. Maybe he should choose Tom Ridge, so this country can go back to code orange this weekend, then down to code yellow, then code orange agian.
RF do you really think Obama is going to call the shots himself, and possibly not take info from people like Head of the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee Joe Biden, or possibly someone he'll place in his cabinet like Jim Webb or General Wesley Clarke?? Men who have loads of international experience! They are called ADVISORS for a reason. I could get into Bush's "Advisors" (ie Dick Cheney ie Haliburton) and the trillions spent & made by 'certain people'. But I won't.
RF I know you're diehard Republican, and I don't have a problem with that. You have you're reasons and upbringing, I have mine. That's what makes this country great. Look at the 'Greatest Presidents' thread, some have been Dem, some GOP. (FDR, Reagan, Nixon, Clinton) but James, you cannot seriously believe in any way this election is "over"??! I mean, at the very least it's tied, possibly one of them is leading by a few points. Personally I don't think polls will count until about August, & even then it is only relevant state by state, not national.
What do Joe Biden, Wesley Clark and Jim Webb know about Iraq? Compared to General Petraeus that is? Biden coudl certainly advise him on foriegn policy, but would know nothing about military policy - something obvious in the Obama campaign. While General Clark would be a great tool for both foriegn and military policy, he's been retired for many years now and knows as much about Iraq as he has read; not an expert source. The problem is that Obama is not going to talk with the only real expert in the world on Iraq. General Petraeus knows more than anyone else the current situation there; not Daily Kos, Fox News or the NY Times. Obama choosing advisors who have a foregone conclusion on the Iraq with little personal observation to validate it isn't exactly picking the best advice and surely isn't doing his best as commander in chief. Maybe I'm wrong, but I believe the President's most important duty is serving as Command in Chief. He doesn't make or interpret the laws, he simply enforces them. As the military serves as the enforcer for US Policy, his status as the CiC IMO is his most important job. Obama from the start has been against the war and foight it tooth and nail, even admitting that he didn't have nearly the amount of information the Legislatures who authorized it had. Regardless of your opinion on the war, being right for the wrong reasons makes it that much worse. As someone recently said, it's highly unlikely anything said here will sway people's opinions, but I don't believe Obama will be good for our foreign policy unless you think buying addoration from 3rd world countries with billions of our tax dollars is good foreign policy. Obama appears to me as a man who lacks any defining core values and principles and does and says what he needs to as to not offend the core democratic base. Someone willing to talk to the leader of Iran, who severs the arms of small children for small theft, advocates the destruction of the western world and the enforcement of strict Islam world-wide, as an equal with no qualms bothers me. Obama will distance himself from Wright, a man he knew and supported for 20 years, for saying the US created AIDS, but won't distance himself from the leader of Iran who denies the Holocaust and that gays exist, as well as advocating the complete eradication of Israel. Something just doesn't seem right there.
Re: New McCain Speech acknowledges Obama as DNC nominee
I believe the President's most important duty is serving as Command in Chief
I agree. Most elections come down to this. If the american people don't think you are worthy of being in control of the greatest military on the planet, you don't become president.
Not only do the american people have to trust a candidate to protect this country at all costs, but they also have to believe that candidate will "push the button" during crunch time.
Something just doesn't seem right there.
You can say that again.
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: New McCain Speech acknowledges Obama as DNC nominee
I want to comment on something that has been an underlying assumption for the last few years. It's been shouted by many a liberal, that Bush has hurt our international image because of his policies and Iraq. I remember in early 2002, when the Iraq war was being discussed and our recent invasion of Afghanistan. I was at a protest (counter protetsing of course) when a foreign student from central America took stage. His argument was that Americans are generally liked by many poorer countries, but not for the reasons we'd like to believe and not for the reasons liberals claim we "used" to be. He claimed that we had support from places like Pakistan, India and the countless others not because of our culture or stance on democracy, but because of our money. And as he said, that is a very dangerous thing. This is all before Bush "tarnished" the US with Iraq when his approval rating was at an all time high and everyone was still upset over 9/11. And his point is something Obama supporters should keep in mind. Gaining support simply because you give them aide is not good foreign policy. Becuase what you create is a welfare state that becomes dependent on US aide for their quality of life. When the US eventually removes that aide, those people are obviously affected and resentment if not hatred ensues. The answer to our problems is not simply as easy as bowing down and throwing trillions of dollars at those who might do us harm. The answer is to refrain from getting involved in the affairs of unstable nations and utilize our own vast resources that exist on our own land. The answer is to not offer aide and services to countries that don't share our goals and basic premises (giving aide to France or Canada 
makes sense, giving it to Saudi Arabia does not). There is an obvious problem in the thought pattern of those who want America to be any kind of leader, yet not be involved. A leader leads through example, but is also involved and participates.
The best example of this would be with stating that everyone should have a clean room. As a leader, it would presumably be enough if I simply made sure my own room was clean before I made sure others had. But I would gain the respect and admiration of my men if I helped them clean communal areas and "got down and dirty" with them. When liberals say the US should be a beacon of human rights and freedom, yet want to take no action to see it through, that is not leadership. That is simply decreeing your will and patting yourself on the back to make yourself feel good. Actions speak louder than words and you have to act to get shit accomplished. This single conept is what I feel creates the divide between many people in this country, and especially myself and many others on this board.
People so often think that if they throw money at something or advise others what should be done that that is good enough and they'll have a positive end state. But any leader/manager will knom, that you must be there to spot check and ensure stuff gets done. You're going to make people unhappy when you tell them they're wrong, but that's one of the burdens of leadership.
So in conclusion, if you want to see the US with any kind of leadership role in the world, we're going to have to do more than send aide, we're going to have to get our hands dirty and be involved. The world "hating" us isn't anything new. Human nature is to always be jealous of teh guy on top and the US is the guy on top. These other nations were never "happy" or "loved" the US, they just liked the aide and free money the US sent. When the US actually started leading rather pat itself on the back as it did for 8 years, some people no longer hid their resentment.
Maybe I'm out of touch, but I think alot of people want to envision this world as a peaceful place where we all get along, and a conflict never arrises. There is only two ways in such a vision could ever be perceived as real. The first in which we actually remove bad elements and incorporate egalitarian views into cultures that don't acknowledge them The second is from the high rises of Manhattan and San Francisco under a delusion with moral relativity and ignorance of the intentions and realities of the world around us. As the saying goes, those who desire peace should prepare for war.
