John McCain claims he is a straight talker. He's not the only one, but he's the one running for President. Rush Limbaugh makes the same claim about straight talk as he crowns himself a "truthseeker" on an almost daily basis. Bill O'Reilly is another "straight talker" direct from his "no spin" zone. I can't tell you how many times Hannity has used the "let me get this straight" lead in to a question. But as I was reading a summary of McCain's challenges stemming from the Times article, it seems straight talk bears a strong resemblance to "spin". It seems the "100 years in Iraq" doesn't really mean 100 years in Iraq, it really means "100 years in Iraq". Savvy? Only a somewhat conservative with a liberal dose of militance can truly grasp the subtle differences. As McCain tried to dodge his own words, he raised another bit of "straight talk" destined for a dizzying trail of spin-strewn segues:
Earlier in the day, talking to reporters about Iraq, McCain, who is a staunch supporter of the troop surge, said he would lose the general election in November unless he can convince Americans that the United States is winning the war. Then moments later, he retracted what he said.
"Let me not put it that starkly," McCain said. "Iraq will play a role in their judgment of my ability to handle national security. If I may, I'd like to retract 'I'll lose.'"
Well Mr. McCain, you could just as easily retract your application for general campaign finance. Or maybe your song and dance and hideous giggle about bombing Iran? Or maybe your deposition that contradicts your rebuttal to the Times allegations of favoring lobbyists? Or maybe your statement that there will be more wars, more PTSD to treat and we will be in Iraq for 100 years? There are worse things you might like to retract as well, but the answer to your request is "No, you may not retract 'I'll lose' " from your "Straight Talk".
Earlier in the day, talking to reporters about Iraq, McCain, who is a staunch supporter of the troop surge, said he would lose the general election in November unless he can convince Americans that the United States is winning the war. Then moments later, he retracted what he said.
"Let me not put it that starkly," McCain said. "Iraq will play a role in their judgment of my ability to handle national security. If I may, I'd like to retract 'I'll lose.'"
Well Mr. McCain, you could just as easily retract your application for general campaign finance. Or maybe your song and dance and hideous giggle about bombing Iran? Or maybe your deposition that contradicts your rebuttal to the Times allegations of favoring lobbyists? Or maybe your statement that there will be more wars, more PTSD to treat and we will be in Iraq for 100 years? There are worse things you might like to retract as well, but the answer to your request is "No, you may not retract 'I'll lose' " from your "Straight Talk".
18 comments:
I failed to note the source of my quote. Ron Claiborne, ABC News.
For the life of me. I just don't get it, the entire campaign, the fact that it looks like the Republican Party is going to put this piece of crap up for POTUS.
WTF am I missing?
Are they cutting their losses so as they can blame everything on the Dems after 4 yrs pass?
That is some good stuff Dem...McCain loves W so much that his meter and tone sound exactly like him. Maybe it is the double talk everyone is so sick of...again, I must reitterate that someone should call Bullshit every time he contradicts himself. How tough would it be to follow him around the country the way some friends of mine used to do with the Greatful Dead and chime in loudly with one of those barely audible "BULLSHIT!" coughs kids used to be so good at in Highschool. That would be a hoot.
Sturange, you may be on to something. I've sometimes referred to McCain as the sacrificial lamb, but sacrificial wolf is probably more accurate. Bohemian Grove anyone? But seriously, when Romney closed his campaign doors it wasn't because he couldn't beat McCain, it was because the Democrats are mobilized and Independents are turning to the Democratic candidates. In other words, he saw the writing on the wall and packed it up until 2012. McCain, on the other hand, is as thrilled as Bob Dole to be nominated for slaughter. But here's the big catch, McCain has literally "nothing to lose" and is afforded the luxury of underdog status. As an underdog, he can bite and chew on his opponent with even the most absurd of Rovian tactics and get away with it. I wrote a piece this morning on Hillary alluding to her "as far as I know" comment with regard to Barack not being Muslim. So subtle that the media largely ignored it, but so effective she will likely win. I hesitate to post it here because I prefer to maintain the focus of this blog on McCain and the disaster he will bring to our Nation as well as the Middle East. But I'm having a very difficult time justifying my vote for Hillary Clinton unless Edwards is her running mate. If it's Evan Bayh or Wes Clarke or some other DLC crony, I'm not sure what to do because they are just as corporatist and interventionist as McCain. The good news? Obama had a great showing in Texas. Texas of all places. As for Ohio, they are convinced Hillary will bring back the 90's I guess. Obama holds the delegate lead and that's a good thing, but the longer Hillary strives to bring doubt and divisiveness in the Democratic Party, the less effective a Democratic White House will be. In fact, it may not be a Democratic White House at all and Romney just might be the VP.
Dem, I absolutely agree with every word. It is the only thing/thought that has made any sense to me of late.
McCain was BROKE for gads sake. He is a tad old and a loon to boot. The money came from the sky. Coulter is buckin, Fatty Arbuckle Limpballs is besides hisself(no mean feat that).
And Hillary, shame on Her. I fear I will have to vote for her. God help us all.
Yes, I was heartened to see how well Obama did in Texas, and amazed that he got double % in Ohio.
But I have a real bad feelin bout this one.
Stay tuned is all, eh?
Dem I've said all along that the Republicans know they will lose this election. They don't want McCain but they will give him some lip service and pseudo support. Then they will put forth someone they can really get behind in 2012. They are willing to bet they can re-take the W.H. in 4 years.
Sorry lot.
Well said, Pat.
Good to see You here.
My Son who has served 1 tour in Iraq and is on his way back in Apr 08 is much changed. If/when he makes it back this time, Jesus. He is obviously already suffering and exibiting PTSD. He just doesn't realize it. Words escape me.
Dear God Sturange I am so very sorry to hear about your son. Isn't there something that can be done, someone he can see before he gets shipped out again? This war is like no other I've seen in my lifetime. It seems as if our precious treasure going over there are pawns in a game only those in the White House know the rules to.
I am a believer in God and that He has a purpose for everything, good and bad. I've said before that He has allowed George Bush to go on and do the things he's doing as an example to this country that our ego will be our downfall. If we cannot learn from the numerous, dangerous mistakes this administration has made, there is no reason to believe that we will ever be the country we once were. McCain will continue down Bush's dangerous path. He cannot be elected.
I don't know if Clinton or Obama can make the difference they say they can in 4 short years, but I'm willing to give either one a chance. I know one thing. They aren't Bush, don't think like Bush and I truly believe they have the best interest of the people in this country in their hearts.
I will pray for your son, that he comes home safe and gets the attention and help he deserves.
Thanks Cat.
Sadly He has to realize that he needs help before he can go try and get it.
He's in the moment.
He's 23, ready to go again.
He doesn't see it, yet.
I do.
Gods only know how he's gonna be when he comes home again.
Let's all hope/pray/ work towards and end to this and all wars.
I'm glad I made the visit here. Thanks to Pat I am "back on track" with regard to voting "against" McCain if that's my only option. I don't "support" a Clinton Presidency, but the "lesser of two evils" is clearly a compelling reason to participate, regardless. I've looked at the Rev. Wright issue and I can't see the phony "outrage" displayed by neocons and the Clinton camp being sustained as it really boils down to free speech and Wright is certainly not the first American to blame our foreign policy and our arrogance for the 9/11 attacks. He didn't "praise" the attacks in any way or suggest a call to arms. With regard to America being run by rich white people, well, what are Bush and Cheney? Rich white men. It's an ugly discussion to be sure, but to ignore the issue is almost as dangerous as meeting it head on. But my thanks to Daze and Pat for reminding me that there is a bigger issue looming in November and McCain will damn America to more wars, decades in Iraq and a sagging economy requiring "sacrifice" for who knows how long.
Welcome back Dem. It's been a while hasn't it? To me it's looking more like Obama/McCain match-up and my vote will go to Obama.
The dog and pony show McCain put on going back to Iraq does not convince me that all is peachy over there nor will it be for a very long time. Our troops have done everything and more they have been asked to. It's up to the government of Iraq to step up and do it's part, but as long as we are there, that won't happen. There is too much corruption in the new government...much like our own! It's time for America to tell them to sh%t or get off the pot and they only ones willing to do that is the Dems.
Perhaps this sounds trite to some.
It's from a speech written by Sen Obama
WE ARE THE ONES THAT WE HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR
and I am weary
and damn sick and tired of
waiting
Nicely put Pat. And to you Sturange, I say I am weary as well. I was particularly disappointed in Bill Clinton essentially asking for MORE knock-downs. He doesn't "give a rip" about namecalling and Obama needs to get beat up to prove he's worthy of office. Unbelievable, but the Clintons really believe they "own" the Democratic Party. I'm sick of the Clintons, although I'll never begrudge Bill for his accomplishments as President. But his accomplishments are often more embellished than the "sniper fire" Hillary described. I just really do not believe I'll even be forced to vote for Hillary, so the gloves are back off. According to Bill, it's good for the Democratic Party.
Dem, Hillary won't get the nomination. There was a time that I really wanted her to succeed, but that time has come and gone. She is not the person I once thought she was and is doing nothing but tearing the party apart with her sniping and whining. Can't tell you how many emails I have sent to her campaign telling her to not only shut the hell up but get the hell out of the running.
Obama WILL be our nominee...and he'll wipe the floor with John Bush McCain. That old turd that can't even tell the difference between Sunni and Shi'ite won't know what hit him.
I am still on the message boards. You can find my under People Connection, just look for the board
"Was there a case for war" or on one called "Daily Buzz: Today's Topics. My s/n is now patmanderson67 thanks to getting one too many tos!
Thanks Pat, I was initially convinced Hillary would win, no matter what anybody did. I was secretly confident in the Clinton Machine to chew up the opposition. But I posted my support, even noting her bi-partisan appeal within the Senate as a co-sponsor with high profile Republicans. But, to be honest, she hasn't authored a lot of legislation. I was in my "Clinton Coma" for at least two months before I read an article that had a "comment" posted about Democrats "really" voting for Bill Clinton or a return to the "pre-Bush era". That's when I took another look at why I, myself, was supporting Hillary. So I started comparing the candidates on the actual issues. I was immediately drawn to Ron Paul. As a former Republican and contemporary conservative with regard to government interference and growth, Ron Paul had a fantastic message. He still has a fantastic message and I think eventually we'll see the Federal Reserve either nationalized or abolished. But Ron Paul was chastised for suggesting the "chickens come home to roost" with regard to 9/11. So he stands by the Party that treated him like a "loon"? So much for "leadership". I looked at Romney and I really liked the guy, but I couldn't get over the "trust" issue. I respect his religion, regardless of the odd traditions and even the core beliefs. I know he's pretty level-headed and understands community and obsesses with family, but something wasn't right and I never put my finger on exactly what wasn't right. Some of it was related to his "fluid" position on issues of principle I guess. And his endorsement of McCain and his early withdrawal from the race (just days after vowing to continue) both confirmed my suspicions that he clearly compromises his principles in politics. Then, I took a look at Kucinich, I love the guy and we need to insure his re-election with a $5 dollar donation, by the way. But when Obama took control in the debates and his ideas were the "essence" of a Kucinich or Edwards campaign message I quickly steered from both Kucinich and Edwards to Obama. I think Edwards was my number one for about a week. I really wanted his campaign to take off, but he challenged the very "media" that was essential to his nomination. He basically tied the noose. But it's important to recognize that Edwards was his own enemy and that exposes a failure in judgement. With regard to Obama, his actions to reduce lobbyist influence and engage the "grass roots" was naturally appealing. His message of Yes We Can speaks volumes. As "corny" as it would look behind McCain, it has power and force behind Obama. Because he does "speak the language" of unity with true sincerity. It sounds "slick" because he really means it. He won't even give up on unity with Rev. Wright, even through the hail storm. Because it's not just Rev. Wright, but every member of his Church and any "black" Church and, ultimately, "any" Church that has a vested interest in putting a halt to the media-driven campaign to silence preachers or ministers that freely express themselves within the confines of their house of worship. We just don't need to poke into religion. We just need to evaluate the core message of each candidate's campaign and listen for sincerity. If you like the sincere message, vote for it. It becomes the nation's "mission statement" if your candidate wins. Me? I'm voting for Yes We Can. Obama '08
Dem, I was a big Kucinich supporter from the start. Even when he pulled out, I called and emailed his campaign begging him to reconsider. He is the ONLY one I thought had true convictions and actually LIVED it in his Senate position. Hillary I thought long and hard about mainly because I felt that she had weathered everything the Republicans threw at her and Bill in the years and beyond they were in the WH. and if she were to get the nomination, most of what the Swiftboating Republicans would cough up was already answered. Besides that, I wanted Bill back in the WH and thought that with 43 men already having held the Presidency, it was past time to put a woman in charge! Even my youngest son has been rooting for Hillary since the beginning of her campaign...and still does.
Honestly, none of the Republican candidates got to me. Rudy is well, Rudy...nuff said. Romney was just too slick, more like a used car salesman than presidential material and there was something about him that just set me off. Being Mormon had nothing to do with the feelings I got about him...after all, I'm Catholic and God knows, most of those so-called Men of God thinks the Catholic Church is doing Satans work! More of a cult than a religion.
I did check into Ron Paul and I admired his stand on bringing this country BACK to the Constitution it was founded on. But there again was something that I couldn't put my finger on about him.
I came to Obama late in the game so to speak. My mother, who passed away on 2-29 (at 82) was a HUGE supporter of his. She talked about him everyday till the day before she died (remind me to tell you a funny story about that night). I started reading his website and paying attention to what he was saying and voila'....I'm a supporter now. He is so far removed from G.W. in intellect and ideas that I KNOW he will get the nomination and wipe the floor with McCain who is nothing more than an older but no wiser G.W. and this country will not survive a 3rd McBush term!
It IS time for a change, and fast. We are on the edge of a cliff and I'm scared silly McCain will drive us over it.
Bottom line is...the country will have only 2 choices. I pray that the voters go with their conscience and elect the person they think will fix the problems GW handed us and will walk away, with a smirk on his face knowing he's left it to someone else to fix....like he's done his entire life!
Honestly Dem...I've lived life thru every President since Kennedy and can tell you with ALL honesty, my life and those of my children were ALL better off under Democrats. History proves that lifestyles were better, God knows the stock market always fared better under Dems.
Somewhere along the line, Republicans let go of "for the people" and became "for the corporations that own/support me"
This country IS it's people, not the businesses.
Excellent ALL of You! Pat so happy to see you here. I've read You nightly on the wacky WasThereaCase Board. EA loves me as much as You.
I 1st noticed Sen Obama when He made His 2004 at the Den Convention, I was struck initially by the fact that he seemed real, not slick, I don't think he looked at the prompters. He actually seemed to speak for himself, no speech writers, a gut belief. So I started looking for anything/everything I could find on this person.
I have been a supporter of Sen Obama since that day. It is time, past time.
I ache with weariness and disbelief that our Country is being run into the ground and beyond.
and I am convinced
that
WE are the ONES that WE"VE been waiting for.
Post a Comment