Jump to content

See you next election cycle!!!!


Recommended Posts

I suppose I shouldn't be suprised. I mean how interesting would coverage of a campaign be if it focused on issues and the positions of the candidates. If that hapeened, either no one would read about the candidates or voters might make their decision based on something other than inuendo and appearances. I mean how many times can a newpaper or television news organization simply talk about the issues and expect people to watch or buy papers?

 

Can't wait to see the article about Obama and a white woman, or maybe in his entire career he has never talked to or been seen associating with a white woman. Or an article on how he's not really "black" enough or some other absurd stuff.

 

Funny thing is I see the bigger issue in the article is McCains being seemingly oblivious to the potential appearance of conflicts of interest. The article make him seem a little naive and I had the impression he would be more sensitive to such things.

 

I'm a little suprised this nonsense started with the the Times though. I would have expected it to come from one of the television stations first, but I guess there's not much integrity left in political journalism in any media. No wonder we're all skeptics.

 

SA

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 112
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I agree. Wasn't it McCain who railed against the influence of lobbyists in the political process? Does McCain/Feingold campaign finance reform ring a bell?

 

Getting caught in bed with lobbyists(and I'm talking figuratively, not carnally) when one evangelized the danger of it makes him seem a bit disingenuous. But should we be surprised? Did he also just vote for torture when just last year he was one of the only Republicans against it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to get too side tracked but SA, Obama has been fighting charges of not being "black enough" for much of his political career. There are some who say that his wife - she and her family are well connected in the black middle and upper class communities of Chicago - is his best line of defense against that. But I admit I have to really wonder when a guy whose father is from Kenya is not considered "black enough!"

 

As for McCain. Well let's see. Our current president admitted (prior to election) that he had an alcohol problem and had done cocaine in the past. Our previous president admitted (prior to election) that he had smoked certain illegal herbs but "didn't inhale." I'd like to think the one before that (George Sr) was made of sterner stuff than either of those two but who knows. So in comparison I think I'm ok with McCain's human weaknesses. And John - no fair putting Monica Lewinsky on Hillary's shoulders - Hillary is not the one who couldn't control herself in that situation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Setting aside the truth (or lack of it) of the current accusations, I will note that McCain was an egregious victim of these types of tactics during a previous campaign. In the 2000 SC primary, the Bush campaign made phone calls and circulated church fliers in which they accused McCain of being insane, of having a black, illegitimate child, labeled him as "The Fag Candidate", and accused his wife of being a drug addict. This, from the campaign of an admitted alcoholic cocaine cowboy. Go figure. Well, we swallowed it just the same as we swallowed all the other stuff this administration has given us.

 

So we elected Bush. Why would anyone expect a different kind of campaign today?

Link to post
Share on other sites

See now Pack, back in 2000, I never saw McCain accused of any of that. Of course I live in Pennsylvania and our Primary is still aways off so you may have seen campaign tactics that were superfluous by the time the primary juggernaught got around to me. I may have thought differently about GW back then, then again, I would have had to have voted for Gore and he won Pennsylvania without my vote anyway

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now pack, lets be fair, Bush is not really a cowboy. He grew up in Connecticut.

 

Obama is facing similar attacks and whisper campaigns. He's been accused of attending a madrassah as a child, being a closet Muslim, having a middle name of Hussein, and Bill OReally announced yesterday that he'll lead a lynch mob if his wife doesn't start being proud of America.

 

As for Hillary, the republicans left no stone unturned looking for dirt back when Bill was running the show. They were very thorough. I doubt there would be anything new and exciting there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

a lynch mob? Did O'Reilly actually say that? Oh dear. Not the best choice of words, given the cultural connotations. Not that I'd be all that shocked to find O'R spouting more dumb and offensive stuff but that one just seems like such an obvious one to have avoided.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't hear it but this is what I read shortly after: O'Reilly: "I don't want to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama unless there's evidence, hard facts, that say this is how the woman really feels"

Did he really say this? Anyone hear it?

Edited part: I guess Gern and I were typing at the same time. Anyway, now I've heard it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRD-zBhE1xM

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

I didn't want to start a new thread and this one seemed related so here goes...

 

A lot has happened since the thread started:

McCain is annointed and everyone is speculating on the VP slot.

Clinton is on the ropes but Obama hasn't quite crossed the finish line.

And I just heard that Bob Barr may enter the race as a Libertarian candidate. This could be interesting.

http://www.ajc.com/news/content/metro/stories/2008/04/04/barr_0405.html

 

The follow-up views of Barr are, well, direct. Anyone else care?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh and don't forget Nader. Didn't I see that he was entering the race a few weeks back? (Did anybody in the whole country give a hoot?)

 

Then there's Gene Amondson, running on the Prohibition party ticket (because prohibition worked so well last time we tried it) and Jackson Grimes of the United Fascist Union. Yes these guys are for real or anyway they seem to think they are. Check them out in the list of 2008 candidates over at project vote smart:

http://www.votesmart.org/election_president_search.php?type=alpha

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...