Mon 15 Sep 2008
It seems that Cindy McCain didn’t like the questions the hosts on the View asked her husband and her. You can see the View interview here.
Watching it I saw a lot of evasion from John McCain and fair tough questions being asked by the hosts of the View. Questions on how Palin was going to change Washington, on why John McCain approved ads which have been debunked as lies about Obama - a point even Carl Rove has talked about.
It just seems all of John McCain’s “straight talk” rhetoric has fallen aside to a “perception talk” agenda where his campaign hides the realities by twisting the perception to their view point. Just looking at Governor Palin who has pirouetted around her own beliefs on topics such as global warming and the war in Iraq (has God tasked us with this war?) makes me shiver thinking about what would happen if she had real power. It isn’t so much her beliefs that scare me (though it isn’t the America I want to live in) but the fact that she understands these beliefs to be unpopular so she has to sugar coat them to be more palatable to the majority of Americans. And then there is the bridge to nowhere debacle which was supposed to paint the perception of Palin as a reformer but we instead find out that she had actually only came out against it after it was killed in congress (and she still kept the money). Oh I don’t doubt she is a reformer but I simply can’t trust what she is going to reform if I can’t trust her own words.
McCain’s own performance on the View along with the actions and words of his campaign make me seriously doubt McCain is in control of this machine. There was a time I had respected the Senator but since he has replaced his straight talk with pandering and slight of hand tricks I just have no trust in him and the policies he may pursue if elected.
On the lighter side, you’ve got to love Tina Fey.
[read this post in: ar de es fr it ja ko pt ru zh-CN ]
September 15th, 2008 at 9:10 am
from what you write, it sounds likely that you will vote for Obama. hopefully you realize that the democratic party uses the exact same techniques, and Obama in particular (just like McCain) simply panders to whoever he is talking to, and often DOES much different than he SAYS. if you are not already aware of the third-party options, please take a look: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_party_(United_States)_presidential_candidates,_2008
myself, i am supporting Bob Barr, the most likely of the above mentioned candidates. cheers, and happy voting, for whoever you decide to.
September 15th, 2008 at 10:05 am
While I will probably be still be voting for Obama, I’ve also lost respect for him. I live in a swing state where we see a lot of political ads; Obama’s are barely any less insulting to my intelligence than McCain’s. I find myself disappointed with both candidates.
September 15th, 2008 at 10:08 am
So far Obama has spoken his mind. There is a difference between carefully choosing your words, changing your mind (which all of us do), and saying what you want people to hear while coveting a different stance.
Sorry though, I’m a realest and third parties still have yet to prove themselves by coming up with a unified agenda that can unite the majority of voters. I will say this one of the few elections I don’t feel like I am voting for the lesser of two evils.
September 15th, 2008 at 10:25 am
Dan can you cite an ad? So far non of the ads that Obama has put out by Obama have been cited for errors on FactCheck.org. There have been a couple of independent organizations which have put out misleading information but none of them have been even remotely linked to Obama or his campaign. If you are just talking about the tone of the ad’s well that isn’t really as important as if the content is correct.
Quick analogy since I just got a dog - most people would be horrified to watch big dogs play with each other. They are pretty rough and to someone who doesn’t understand it might be a traumatizing experience but that is just how big dogs play. There is a fine line between rough housing and fighting however. In politics, in my opinion, it goes over the line when the attacks have no bearing on policy (aka what that person would do in office), becomes ad hominin or outright lies.
UPDATE: I just checked - FactCheck did find one ad which came from the Obama Campaign which does distort McCain’s Education voting history. That still doesn’t come close to the McCain campaign claiming Obama voted for Sex Ed classes for kindergarten kids. Still, Obama doesn’t get a pass for his ad.
September 15th, 2008 at 10:30 am
J5, I’ll have to get back to you after the next one I see, right now all I have in my head is vague impressions
September 15th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
I’m sorry, I just thought that the questions were incredibly stupid and thus had no real right answer. Like the one asking if he supports the return of slavery since he is a conventionalist.
You might note that Biden and Obama actually voted *for* the bridge to nowhere (instead of diverting the money to Katrina):
http://www.cdobs.com/archive/our-columns/obama-and-biden-voted-for-bridge-to-nowhere,1628/
I’m confused too as to why people say that she did not kill the bridge to nowhere. Congress removed the requirement that the money be spent on the bridge, but still sent the money. That isn’t “killing”. Palin could have wasted the money on the bridge, but instead killed the project and instead spent the money on other, more important infrastructure.
September 15th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
Bad spellcheck, sorry, thats constitutionalist, not conventionalist.
September 15th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Russ, that is a pretty skewed view of the amendment process. The amendment itself was overwhelmingly rejected though one can not draw an inference that the people who rejected it were in favour of the rider, only that they thought it was an inappropriate amendment. That could mean they disagreed with how it was amended and not on the principle. It is hard to speculate on the reasoning since unlike the supreme court votes do not require written explanations.
Gov. Palin supported the bridge to nowhere but then decided that public support was not behind it. The problem was not that she didn’t build the bridge or changed her mind but that she used it as an example of her killing pork barrel spending. But she still got the pork and used it. Hey I wouldn’t reject money to help my state either but don’t turn around and try to say you did something you didn’t.
September 15th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Its true that she did not reject spending, but its also true that she rejected wasteful spending which is what the entire controversy is about. You may say she changed her mind because of public opinion, others may say she changed it because she collected more facts.
The whole idea of citizens of a state sending money to the federal government only to have it doled out in bits and pieces back to states often with requirements is something I personally disdain, so long as federal taxes remain at their current level, there is no alternative. (To make the point more clear, federal taxes should only cover federal programs)