Arizona Senator John McCain (official)

[methomps]

Originally Posted by fourteenandoh

any chance i am wrong about the mccain campaign? they have plenty of ammo right now, but maybe they don't want to use their bullets this far ahead of the election. man, i really hope that's the case.

McCain knows how to win wars, and it isn't by shooting your bullets.

[generaladm]

Originally Posted by methomps

McCain knows how to win wars, and it isn't by shooting your bullets.

You win wars by crashing planes?

It's a joke! Relax.

[daddyphatsacs]

Originally Posted by fourteenandoh

any chance i am wrong about the mccain campaign? they have plenty of ammo right now, but maybe they don't want to use their bullets this far ahead of the election. man, i really hope that's the case.

As an Obama supporter I can only hope that this is the case. McCain squandered the months where he had the nomination while Obama and Clinton were scrapping it out. He has lacked a consistent message, which is something that GWB's campaign was very good at. If you have noticed, Obama's campaign is using two messages........change, and that voting for McCain is like voting for a third term for Bush. Both obviously go together, and I think that they are starting to be pretty effective. McCain's problem is that he hasn't found a theme that has stuck against Obama...... The closer that we get to November with this being the case, the harder it will be for McCain to move up.

I've said it several times now, I think that McCain is showing himself to be a 2nd tier candidate. He has that same deer in the headlights look that Kerry had in 2004.

[CookyPuss]

Best campaign ad ever:

YouTube - Obama's Foreign Friends

[Gatorubet]

And the needless profanity turns off voters they are trying to reach

[LitlBuck]

Originally Posted by daddyphatsacs

As an Obama supporter I can only hope that this is the case. McCain squandered the months where he had the nomination while Obama and Clinton were scrapping it out. He has lacked a consistent message, which is something that GWB's campaign was very good at. If you have noticed, Obama's campaign is using two messages........change, and that voting for McCain is like voting for a third term for Bush. Both obviously go together, and I think that they are starting to be pretty effective..

He did not squander all of that time because most of the "news" coverage was all about the Obama and Clinton campaign. Why should he wasted his dollars when Clinton and Obama were going after each other. It is sort of strange how they now agree on almost everything.

Obama's message of "change" is quite a message. I guess I would like to know what it stands for. Anybody can talk about "change" but what is a great to look like after it has been changed. Every time a Democrat runs against the Republican or a Republican runs against a Democrat and the person in power as low approval ratings the candidate whose party is not in power always uses that message. Those are really two powerful messages that Obama used and is using. Maybe someday he can talk about global economy, taxes, illegal immigration, and everything else that is going wrong with this Country. At least McCain says something that is specific and does not talk about "change" without giving specific details about it.

[sepia5]

Originally Posted by LitlBuck

He did not squander all of that time because most of the "news" coverage was all about the Obama and Clinton campaign. Why should he wasted his dollars when Clinton and Obama were going after each other. It is sort of strange how they now agree on almost everything.

Obama's message of "change" is quite a message. I guess I would like to know what it stands for. Anybody can talk about "change" but what is a great to look like after it has been changed. Every time a Democrat runs against the Republican or a Republican runs against a Democrat and the person in power as low approval ratings the candidate whose party is not in power always uses that message. Those are really two powerful messages that Obama used and is using. Maybe someday he can talk about global economy, taxes, illegal immigration, and everything else that is going wrong with this Country. At least McCain says something that is specific and does not talk about "change" without giving specific details about it.

Like what? Hey John, what's your policy on Iraq? We'll leave when the time is right. The surge is working. Hey John, how about the economy? The market always works itself out. What about health care, John? The problem with health care is that the cost of health care is too expensive. (Actually, when McCain was in Tampa, I recall the local news coverage running a piece on his visit to the Moffit Center where he actually said something along the lines of, "If Americans exercised for 30 minutes and ate healthier, we wouldn't be experiencing a crisis with health care." Not kidding.) What about education, Mr. McCain? It's good.

I think McCain's theme might end up being, "You're all my friends." Just listen to him speak to a crowd. His only transition is "My friends . . ." McCain is so much more genuine and authentic when he's one-on-one or speaking to a small group.

[DaytonBuck]

John McCain has no chance of being elected he's got a daughter who's a colored

['BusNative]

YouTube - McCain's Freudian Slip

['BusNative]

Some angry journalism from TSUN. I haven't been paying the emissions issues any attention at all - looks like folks in TSUN have been.

McCain flops on emissions standards

Monday, July 21, 2008
Daniel Howes

McCain flops on emissions standards


Would someone please tell Sen. John McCain, the GOP's presidential wannabe, that straight talk and flip-flopping don't mix.

Not in the space of a month. Not when the issue -- whether the next president supports allowing individual states to set emissions rules for new cars and trucks -- means Detroit's automakers could face billions more in R&D spending should the so-called EPA waiver sought by California and a dozen or so other states become law.

One of the last things this beleaguered industry needs is more friends like McCain, whose record of being the Republican Party's leading automotive antagonist is showing through on the campaign trail. On that, at least, he's consistent.

A few thoughts: Does anyone in the Arizona senator's campaign, which stopped Friday at General Motors Corp.'s Tech Center in Warren, actually brief the candidate? Do they know the difference between a single national standard for emissions and allowing the zealots in the California Assembly to set their own emissions targets? Do they know how much each costs? Do they care? If not, why waste time here?

What's McCain doing?

"You'd think before you come to Detroit or GM, you'd have a pretty concise answer on this," an executive with a rival automaker tells me. "Michigan should be a competitive state for him, but it almost feels like he's doing what he can to lose it...

[CookyPuss]

Originally Posted by LitlBuck

Obama's message of "change" is quite a message. I guess I would like to know what it stands for. Anybody can talk about "change" but what is a great to look like after it has been changed. Every time a Democrat runs against the Republican or a Republican runs against a Democrat and the person in power as low approval ratings the candidate whose party is not in power always uses that message. Those are really two powerful messages that Obama used and is using. Maybe someday he can talk about global economy, taxes, illegal immigration, and everything else that is going wrong with this Country. At least McCain says something that is specific and does not talk about "change" without giving specific details about it.

I don't know where you get your information, but Obama has made far more specific policy proposals than McCain. Spend a little time on their websites and explore the issues, you will find far more issues covered and far more detail on Obama's site. Obama has given a specific objective of removing combat troops from Iraq in 16 months, McCain clings to a vague notion of "victory" which he refuses to define. Obama has given a specific plan for applying the payroll tax to income over $250K to fix Social Security, McCain says he'll get a panel to work on it and wants Bush's failed proposal of privatization of accounts for younger workers (he calls the way it has been funded since the beginning a "disgrace"). Obama has a comprehensive plan for securing the borders and dealing with illegals who are already here. McCain says he wouldn't even vote for his legislation that he co-sponsored and now only talks about securing the border, no longer giving a clear plan to deal with the illegals that are already here other than to say we will deal with it "humanely." The only thing McCain is specific about is making the Bush tax cuts permanent (which he originally opposed), staying in Iraq (whether they want us there or not), and he'll veto "earmarks" and "pork" except for the military.

Here's an article noting the differences between the two:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.co...gn-websit.html

For some reason, while I was researching various blog posts I got interested the differences between McCain's and Obama's websites, and in particular the policy information they make available. I think it started when I decided to check out reports that McCain had no energy policy. It turned out that you could find bits of one, if you were prepared to slog through his various speeches, but at the time, his Issues page did not have an entry for energy. (Now it does.) I then noticed that, as I said earlier, it doesn't have an entry for foreign policy either. (It still doesn't, though there is a page on Iraq.) I started poking around, and the contrast between McCain's and Obama's Issues pages is really striking.

Here's a list of issues that Obama has a page on and McCain doesn't: Civil Rights, Disabilities, Faith, Family, Foreign Policy, Homeland Security, Poverty, Service, Seniors and Social Security, Technology, Urban Policy, Women. That's a pretty striking list. Moreover, he has a page called 'Additional Issues' with links to plans on Arts, Child Advocacy, Katrina, Science, Sportsmen, and Transportation. Of these, only Sportsmen has a counterpart on McCain's site. Finally, under 'People', you can find separate policy pages on issues relevant to Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders (one-pagers in six languages, a longer version in English), First Americans, Labor, Latinos, and LGBT.

That's twenty five issues that Obama gives a page to and McCain does not. And some of them are pretty striking: Foreign Policy, Homeland Security, and Poverty are surprising absences in one way; Faith, Family, and Service in another.

Here's a list of issues McCain covers that have no counterpart on Obama's Issues page: The Sanctity of Life (question: why is "Protecting Children from Internet Pornographers" part of McCain's Sanctity of Life policy?), Judicial Philosophy, Space Program. If you hunt around, you can find a link to a little page with two paragraphs on autism which has, to my knowledge, no counterpart on Obama's site. [UPDATE: in comments at ObWi, ulpian246 points out that Obama does have a page on autism.]

That's three issues that McCain gives a page to and Obama does not.

Moreover, Obama's pages are a lot more detailed than McCain's, and they usually contain links to both to pdfs that are even more detailed and to speeches Obama has given on the topic in question. Almost none of McCain's do. This is a pity: McCain's speeches often contain more detailed expositions of his policy than you can find on his Issues page, and on issues like foreign policy, they are the only source of information about what he thinks. But there is no systematic way to find them.

[fourteenandoh]

Originally Posted by MuckFich06

The only thing McCain is specific about is making the Bush tax cuts permanent (which he originally opposed), staying in Iraq (whether they want us there or not), and he'll veto "earmarks" and "pork" except for the military.

there are a ton of things going on in this country right now, but the solution to many of the economic ones lie right here. if he did nothing but reign in wasteful spending his administration could prove to be a huge success. i obviously realize, however, that it will take much more than this to win an election.

[Steve19]

The New York Times has rejected a negative piece by John McCain, which can be viewed by visiting the article link below and then clicking the link there.

In brief, the rejection was not about McCain's views but rather that he was not saying anything about his own position and was rather trying to only criticize Obama's position.

If you are McCain, a rebuke like this should be a sign.

Link to full article

The New York Times has rejected an essay that Sen. John McCain wrote defending his Iraq war policy.



Sen. John McCain wrote an op-ed for The New York Times, but the paper said it could not publish it as written.







The piece was in response to an op-ed from Sen. Barack Obama that was published in the paper last week.
In an e-mail to the McCain campaign, Opinion Page Editor David Shipley said he could not accept the piece as written, but would be "pleased, though, to look at another draft."


"Let me suggest an approach," he wrote Friday. "The Obama piece worked for me because it offered new information (it appeared before his speech); while Senator Obama discussed Senator McCain, he also went into detail about his own plans. It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece." Read McCain's rejected piece


In a statement released Monday, The New York Times said it is "standard procedure on our Op-Ed page, and that of other newspapers, to go back and forth with an author on his or her submission."



"We look forward to publishing Senator McCain's views in our paper just as we have in the past. We have published at least seven Op-Ed pieces by Senator McCain since 1996. The New York Times endorsed Senator McCain as the Republican candidate in the presidential primaries. We take his views very seriously," the statement said.


McCain's rejected op-ed was a lengthy critique of Obama's positions on Iraq policy, particularly his view of the surge.

[fourteenandoh]

The NYT only publishes op-eds they agree with.

CNN doesn't mention where Shipley used to work. He worked in the Clinton administration as a speech writer.

[Steve19]

Originally Posted by fourteenandoh

The NYT only publishes op-eds they agree with.

CNN doesn't mention where Shipley used to work. He worked in the Clinton administration as a speech writer.

Having read McCain's piece, I agree with the comments Shipley made. I would be much more interested in reading McCain's comments on his own changing positions and unbridled support for the war in Iraq from its inception. In my mind, Obama isn't the only one who can be accused of naivete. For instance, any candidate who argues that the Iraq War can be "won" needs to provide a compelling account of how he plans to keep the peace and instill Western democratic institutions. Can that realistically be accomplished with the speed Americans would like or at a cost they can afford?

I think that both candidates need to do more to explain the complexity of the global situation to Americans, not only on the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, but the economy and other issues.
I guess that I am disappointed in the level of the discussion so far.

On the other hand, I don't think that anyone who has held a position as a speech writer for a major political candidate should serve in a position such as Shipley serves.

Impartiality should be a hallmark of the American press. Sadly, it appears to be sorely lacking in so many outlets these days. And we are all worse off for it.