home

McCain Competing For Attention

By TChris, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 09:21:27 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Poor John McCain. He has to compete for attention against Barack Obama even when Obama is out of the country. And he has to compete for attention against Bob Barr, who is likely to deflect some votes that would otherwise come his way. Now, at the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, he'll have to compete for attention against the entertaining Ron Paul, whose planned rally during the Republican convention looks to be so popular that it's had to move to a larger venue -- the Target Center in neighboring Minneapolis.

Paul, who has often voiced his differing policy views from presumptive Republican nominee John McCain, has made it clear in past interviews with CNN his supporters won’t be in Minneapolis to interfere or cause problems for the Republican Party. “We’re not going to disrupt them,” Paul told CNN last month. “We’re not going to demonstrate as much as present a positive case for values that we believe should be the Republican values.”

As opposed to McCain's values, which are ... um ...

< John Edwards in Denver Today, Promoting Anti-Poverty Plan | LA Police Chief Bill Bratton Endorses Gay Marriage >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    McCain Competing For Attention | 74 comments (74 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    I feel sorry for Americans (of which I am one of) (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by Grace on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 03:18:41 AM EST
    because we must be so supremely stupid that we would take one overseas trip as being "foreign policy credentials" for a Presidential candidate.  This is supposed to prove he could be "Commander in Chief" too.    

    I mean -- really.  

    How stupid are we supposed to be?

    Would we sign up for heart surgery with a doctor who had looked at all the "100 top Google websites" on heart surgery?  That's experience, isn't it?  

    Would we give our car repairs over to guys who've spent a weekend oogling AutoTrader magazine?

    Would we hire "Needlawyerquick.com" as our defender in a criminal case simply because they have a nice website?    

    I seriously (really, seriously) look at the Obama trip as being a joke.  Does anyone think you can get any sort of "credentials" by taking a short trip somewhere?  

    Please!  If you do!  I would like to get oil drilling credentials so please contribute to my collection for my cruise to Alaska!!  I'm dying to go to Alaska!  I promise I'll look at ANWR!  

    To look at it another way (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Steve M on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 06:12:44 AM EST
    I wouldn't hire a doctor for my heart surgery if his experience consisted of having a heart attack once.  Nor would I let my car be repaired by someone whose qualification is that his car once spent five years in a repair shop in North Vietnam.

    If you can find me an American who thinks "Barack Obama has great foreign policy credentials because he took a trip overseas recently" then yeah, I'd probably feel sorry for him too.  My guess is that not very many people actually think that way.

    Parent

    why is it (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 07:20:16 AM EST
    that so many people think that McCain's experience ENDED after he returned home from Vietnam?  Does none of his work for so many years in the senate and as a leader in his party give him any relevant experience in foreign policy and the military?

    If you want tio disreguard his time spent in the military and as a POW, that's your right.  But, to make the case that his service in the military is his sum total of experience is kind of silly.

    And no, I am not supporting McCain for president.  But, I'm not supporting Obama either

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 0) (#16)
    by Steve M on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 08:00:27 AM EST
    to make the case that Obama's sole foreign policy experience is this trip he's currently on is pretty silly too.

    Parent
    No it is not (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by BernieO on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 08:39:30 AM EST
    He himself has said that he is more qualified than either Hillary or McCain because he lived abroad (as a kid) and has visited his relatives in Africa and travelled as a student to Pakistan. How bizarre is that?
    He could not be bothered to hold even one policy or oversight meeting of the important subcommittee that he has chaired since 1/07 which oversees european and NATO affairs (which includes Afghanistan). This is the committee that Biden chaired and where he got his foreign policy cred. (The comparable committee in the House has has numerous meetings during the same time period.) All Obama has done is hold required meetings for routine approval of Bush's diplomatic appointments.
    He apparently wanted the position just to put on his resume, not to do the job or to get experience. He was challenged on this only once in a debate and used the excuse that he was too busy running for president - as if he could not have resigned. Just recently Jim Demint (a McCain supporter who sits on the committee) criticised Obama and asked him to convene an oversight hearing on Afghanistan. Obama replied by saying that Demint was not interested in the committee because he had missed a meeting in April which was just a routine rubberstamping of a few diplomatic appointments. Missing the meeting was no big deal and it not in any way comparable to not having policy and oversight meetings - or missing such meetings. I am sure that Demint did this to make people aware that Obama has been shirking, but it does not change the fact that it is a troubling example of Obama's unwilllingness to do the necessary work.

    Joe Wilson, among others, was highly critical of Obama for this dereliction of duty.

    Obama has a pattern of not doing his job, but then taking credit. There was an article in the W Post last March about how he took credit for going to early morning meetings to hammer out an agreement on immigration policy when he had not attended any of those meetings. When the Senate had to revisit the issue in '07 Obama was rebuked by both Kennedy and Specter for showing up late to a meeting then asking questions about things that had been already covered. This is outrageous behavior from a new Senator with no experience in national affairs - evidence that he is wildly overconfident and not willing to do what is needed to educate himself.
    This is what worries me most about Obama. It is bad enough that he is so green, but I have a bad feeling that he is so sure of himself that he will not listen to advisors who are not. If so this will be a disaster not only for the Democratic party but also for the country.
    The saddest thing is that Obama is young enough that he could have taken a few years to really prepare himself to be president and if he had, I think he would have been one of the best presidents this country has ever seen.

    Why party leaders were not more troubled by this is beyond me. I think they must believe that he will listen to expert advice, but from what I read he is often so sure of his instincts that he ignores what other more knowledgeable people tell him.

    Parent

    I assume (5.00 / 0) (#30)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 09:08:12 AM EST
    you are similarly outraged by the fact that McCain hasn't gone to a Armed Services Cmtte meeting on Afghanistan in over 2 years?  

    Or does he get a pass?

    Parent

    if McCain (2.00 / 0) (#35)
    by ccpup on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 09:29:25 AM EST
    was an inexperienced first term Senator who desperately needs to be educated, then, yes, I imagine people would be angry.

    But he's not.

    Parent

    the WA PO article you cite (1.00 / 1) (#27)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 09:01:57 AM EST
    from last March was about politicians inflating their records and it also included the Clinton Bosnia bullet dodging story.  So of course, everyone focused on the Clinton Bosnia story because lying about how you arrived in a foreign country (and not about what you accomplished while you were there) is so much more important than lying to your constituents about what you have done for them in your job.  And, that article included a second instance of where Obama took credit for work he had not done as well.

    I suppose you could say thta Clinton's Bosnia lie would be the same as Obama claiming that he used his super powers to fly to work everyday at the capitol bldg.  He did this in order to reduce his carbon footprint.  Fron here we would diverge on to where Clinton would not lie about what she accomplished in Bosnia.  But, Obama would claim credit for the legislative accomplishments of other senators.

    This all would have been repeated endlessly if we had video footage of Obama actually arriving at the capitol bldg in a gas guzzling SUV instead of flying in with his cape and the big "D" on his chest.  Or would that be a big "S" for savior.

    Of course there probably WAS video of Obama on the Capitol steps claiming credit for the work of other senators.  But, it was so much more fun to ridicule Clinton for Bosnia instead.

    Parent

    what other experience (none / 0) (#20)
    by ccpup on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 08:28:36 AM EST
    has he had?  Those meetings he held as Chair of the Foreign Relations Subcommittee?  Nope.  His time as a child in Indonesia?  Nope.

    I'm really curious what, exactly, his other experience is.  And making an anti-war speech in a liberal district while not being in a position to actually vote on what was about to happen (but voting to fund this war he was supposedly against anyway when he got to the US Senate) doesn't count.

    Parent

    apparently Obama's experience (none / 0) (#26)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 08:48:46 AM EST
    is his speech against the war in 2002.

    Parent
    too bad (none / 0) (#33)
    by ccpup on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 09:27:43 AM EST
    I'm not sure how it's tallied up, but I think several votes to continue funding the war (with extra bonus points for voting for Bush's Energy Bill) cancel out one speech made by a local politician in a liberal district.

    I do sincerely feel sorry for anyone who doesn't think the Republicans won't hammer Obama with this fact and that Obama's response will be a mixture of "uh" and "um" uttered in an exasperated, slightly condescending "you just don't get it" tone.

    That's SURE to bring those blue collar voters, rural voters and other MIA Dem Base Voters around!

    :-)

    Parent

    well go ahead.... (none / 0) (#31)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 09:19:45 AM EST
    list out the rest of experience for us.  Because I'm not going to go read it for myself on his web site.

    Parent
    If you don't even want to (3.66 / 3) (#43)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 10:09:54 AM EST
    go to his website why should anyone waste their time talking about Obama to you.  Your mind is made up.  Go get your McCain '08 bumpersticker and be done with it.

    Parent
    well, i have gotten tired of the go to his (none / 0) (#53)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 10:33:43 AM EST
    website meme that was heavily used throughout the primaries.  I expect the candidite to be able to explain their own positions and policies in public extemporaneously when asked for details.  Prove they actually understand them and can defend them.

    Parent
    When was McCain (none / 0) (#29)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 09:06:53 AM EST
    a leader of his party?  Seems to me that for most of his tenure he was generally reviled by much of his party.

    Parent
    ok (none / 0) (#38)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 09:55:31 AM EST
    maybe "leader of his party" was the wrong expression.  I am aware as you point out that many of the far right in his party have never really been his fans.  How about well respected leader in the senate?

    Parent
    That term also applies (none / 0) (#39)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 09:58:18 AM EST
    to Robert Byrd and Ted Stevens.

    Parent
    When it comes to experience (none / 0) (#40)
    by tree on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 10:03:53 AM EST
    in the Senate Robert Byrd is a leader. We aren't talking here about political viewpoints. We are talking about experience. McCain has more foreign policy experience because of his time in the Senate, Obama has much much less. This is true regardless of whether McCain's political viewpoint s@cks.

    Parent
    It is also irrelevant (none / 0) (#42)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 10:09:01 AM EST
    More experience means absolutely nothing.  There is no historical reason to believe that having MORE experience will equate to better leadership.

    Parent
    that is a completely (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 10:14:12 AM EST
    different argument than trying to claim that McCain doesn't have experience.

    If you want to make that claim, I won't argue with you.  But, I will argue with posters who try to claim that McCain doesn't have more experience than Obama.

    I have yet to see anyone who has been making this claim provide the list of what Obama's experience in foreign policy and the military actuall consists of.

    Parent

    Well one of his accomplishments (none / 0) (#46)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 10:16:56 AM EST
    is being able to remember when things happened in Iraq

    Parent
    you probably don't want to go there (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 10:23:57 AM EST
    because then we will have to talk about domestic policy next and we will all want to know when they moved a Great Lake to Oregon, when 8 - 10 new states were added to the union, when Arkansas moved closer to Kentucky and when a two-term president would be hob nobbing with foreign leaders for 10 years instead of 8.

    Parent
    Sorry no (none / 0) (#51)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 10:27:27 AM EST
    This isn't a gaffe.  This is a central component of McCain's raison d'etre.  McCain wishes to claim that the Surge is the sole reason why violence subsided in Iraq.  And to do that he needs to recreate history.

    But feel free to excuse this by pointing out that Obama once said 57 states or some other nonsense.

    Parent

    are you so sure Obama's (1.00 / 0) (#54)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 10:35:35 AM EST
    mistakes were gaffes?  Maybe he is just woefully ignorant about American geography.  A majority of the country is.  It isn't really hard to imagine it.

    Parent
    Actually yes it is (none / 0) (#59)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 10:43:28 AM EST
    incredibly hard to imagine that Barack Obama, or any major political figure, doesn't know that there are only 50 states or where the great lakes are.

    I find it incredibly hard to believe that John McCain doesn't know that Iraq and Pakistan do not border each other.  

    The majority of the country are not Harvard and Columbia educated and running for President of the United States.

    Parent

    For any adult Clinton supporters (none / 0) (#62)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 10:51:19 AM EST
    like myself out there, Obama just screwed up one word: states. He obviously to anyone with any common sense meant to say there were 57 primaries. I'm with BTD. Give it a rest already. (until he passes up Hillary for vp!)

    Parent
    that's fine (none / 0) (#64)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 10:58:38 AM EST
    except he said he had visited 57 so far and there were 2 to go and his campaign hadn't let him go to Hawaii.  So, the total came up to around 60 by the time you added it all up.  And, the total number of primaries and caucuses (including MI and FL) was 56.  The statement may have been made before any decision to include MI and FL which Obama always made sure to remind us of the fact that he never campaigned there and they weren't real "primaries".  So, knock the 56 down to 54 if the statement was made prior to the decision to include MI and FL.

    Parent
    Wow (none / 0) (#65)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 01:09:14 PM EST
    I don't even know what to say about that comment.

    Parent
    you didn't understand (none / 0) (#66)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 01:17:35 PM EST
    that I was debunking the excuse that Obama was talking about the total number of primaries and caucuses?  Well, if that what he was talking about, he didn't get that number right either.

    So, apparently Obama either doesn't know how many states there are or he doesn't know how many primaries and caucuses his party holds.

    Pick one.

    Parent

    Yeah I get what you are trying to do (none / 0) (#67)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 01:23:45 PM EST
    I just find it amazing that you would spending that much time on a single comment uttered once.

    But I guess when you really really want to criticize someone, you'll use whatever you can.

    Parent

    you don't seem to mind (none / 0) (#68)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 01:29:55 PM EST
    spending your entire day rebutting me and anyone else who happens to criticize Obama.

    Parent
    Nah (none / 0) (#69)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 01:42:03 PM EST
    I go after about 5 or 6 of the more ridiculous commenters.  Once in a while I will engage with BTD, but that is based more on legitimate philosophical differences.

    Parent
    Again, on the subject of (none / 0) (#55)
    by tree on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 10:38:00 AM EST
    recreating history, you don't want to go there. Obama's done the same thing, taking credits for things he hasn't done, insisting that he's always stood for X when he's said exactly the opposite in the past. And there's that recent scrubbing of his website of all references to him saying the surge didn't and wouldn't work.

    Parent
    Why is it (none / 0) (#60)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 10:45:12 AM EST
    that you feel the need to defend every criticism of McCain with a "Well Obama does it too" response?  You don't even care if it is relevant, so long as it properly deflects the argument.

    We've gone over the websitegate several times.  How bout you address this point rather than hide behind past criticisms of Obama?

    Parent

    No, I'm arguing with your (none / 0) (#70)
    by tree on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 02:26:15 PM EST
    style of defense which seems to be exactly what you are projecting on others. The "defense" of criticisms of Obama's lack of experience was first to shout "Threadjack" then to insist that McCain doesn't have any experience either and then to say, never mind, that doesn't matter because he misstated history so therefore he's unqualified. But the problem with that argument is that Obama's misstated history too and if that's all it takes to be unqualified then neither one is qualified. That's where YOUR argument leads. We are just pointing it out to you, again.

      I'm not voting lesser of two evils this time, partly because I'm not sure which is which, and partly because its finally reached the stage where all "lesser-ism" is doing is promoting lies and banality from both sides. If you want to convince  us here to vote for Obama, tell us something positive about him or what he's done, don't just repeat the "McCain Bad" mantra. I get that  McCain is not what I want in a President. But Obama isn't either and at this point voting "None of the above" seems like the only rational choice to me. And I will continue to criticize whatever I feel deserves criticism, regardless of who's selling it and who thinks I should just fall in line and STFU.    

     

    Parent

    And even in foreign affairs (none / 0) (#52)
    by tree on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 10:33:15 AM EST
    you've got the backtrack on an "undivided Jerusalem" and the campaign memo advising reporters to not  http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11935.html in the Middle East.

    Parent
    Sorry for messing that link up (none / 0) (#57)
    by tree on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 10:39:42 AM EST
    don't wear green.

    Parent
    Other than... (none / 0) (#48)
    by rottenart on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 10:21:39 AM EST
    normalizing relations with Vietnam and consistently voting against numerous military benefits over the years (including the recent GI Bill, which he campaigned against, didn't show up to vote on, and then took credit for passing), what exactly is the Mccain experience? I haven't seen anything that would indicate that he has had actual dealings in foreign policy because of his committee assignment.

    I agree that Obama is a little thin in the experience department. But I have yet to see any proof that Mccain has tons of it just by virtue of time served in public service. In fact, on his website, the only issues related to foreign policy are the military and Iraq.

    Perhaps Mccain is the one who should be burnishing his credentials...

    Parent

    Exactly... (none / 0) (#73)
    by Thanin on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 06:26:07 PM EST
    with McSames votes in the senate, he may have had more experiences, but he obviously never learn anything from them.

    Parent
    Nice threadjack (none / 0) (#13)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 06:58:00 AM EST
    What does this have to do with the RNC convention?  Oh right. Nothing.

    It is fairly clear that you hate Obama.  If you would like to revel in your Obama hate you would probably be better off at another, more Republican, website.

    Parent

    Nice threadjack yourself (none / 0) (#25)
    by tree on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 08:45:42 AM EST
    The thread title is McCain Competes for Attention and the first sentence refers to Obama's trip.Its relevant and not a threadjack.

     This is not a cheerleading site. Its a site to discuss issues from all angles. If you really don't like hearing other angles then you are free to go elsewhere yourself, which is a much more honorable position than urging others to leave. Carping solely because you don't want to hear viewpoints you don't agree with wastes bandwidth for no purpose. Next time it might be easier on you to just clap your hands over your ears and shout,"La-la-la-la,  I can't hear you."

    Parent

    Right (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 09:05:11 AM EST
    So because Chris tangentially mentions Obama that means that a polemic on the merits of Obama's experience is warranted?

    You can't possibly be that intellectually dishonest, can you?

    This site is certainly not a cheerleading site.  It is also not a rally point for McCain supporters.  Whether you are a dyed in the wool Republican or you just can't let go of the primaries, if you are a McCain supporter then you are going against the tenets of this site.  Unless of course you believe that McCain is secretly going to implement a liberal mandate.

    I "carp" at petulant rants towards Obama.  I "carp" at the hypocrisy of some here that believe that McCain deserves respect as a Senator and Presidential nominee but Obama deserves none.

    To be clear, I don't care who you or Grace vote for. But pro-McCain and childishly anti-Obama rhetoric should be attacked here.


    Parent

    The subject matter (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by tree on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 09:26:32 AM EST
    was the attention that McCain is getting versus Obama. Therefore the amount of attention that Obama is getting is totally relevant to the thread whether you want to admit it or not.

     And I would politely request that you not make personal attacks about my "intellectual honesty" as it doesn't further the dialogue one iota and it obviously wasn't intended to. I won't say more on this so as not to violate site rules.

    You've got a limited view of what people here are all about if you think its all just McCain support or not "letting go" of the primaries. Perhaps if you didn't knee-jerk a jaded reaction and instead addressed the substance of Grace's point you'd make more progress. Simple repetitive comments of yours like "threadjack", variations of which appear in numerous threads, don't address the point. They come off sounding like crude attempts to silence rather than arguments. If you've got a valid counter-argument against Grace's distaste for the media and voters assuming that a foreign campaign  tour equals foreign policy experience then wouldn't be more effective to state that rather than to repeat once again your meme that some posters are picking on Obama?    

    Parent

    The subject matter (none / 0) (#36)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 09:46:15 AM EST
    was that not only does McCain have to deal with competing with Obama for attention he ALSO has to deal with Bob Barr and now Ron Paul.  That was the subject of the diary.

    The same 10 or so people continue to do the the same thing here.  

    What is there to counter about Grace's polemic?  Who actually believes that his trip to Iraq and Afghanistan somehow legitimizes his foreign policy "experience"?  

    There is no counter-argument to a polemic.  Grace believes whatever she believes.  Nothing will change that.

    Parent

    what? (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 09:28:43 AM EST
    tangentially?  The first sentence of the article is talking about the fact that McCain has to compete for attention BECAUSE OF OBAMA'S TRIP.

    The commenter laments about the fact that the public and the media are taken in by style over substance for what they cover or pay attention to.

    It all sounds relevant to me since if the media paid more attention to their responsibilty to inform, no one would have to "compete" for coverage.

    Parent

    No candidate should have to COMPETE (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 07:27:54 AM EST
    for media attention.  Not for attention from television anyway.  Isn't it the responsibility of the media to provide information to the voters?  Aren't television broadcasters required through the terms of their FCC licenses to inform the public?

    Why should candidates be REQUIRED to continue to one-up each other in order to provide ratings boosts for the media in order to get the media to actually do their jobs?

    Haven't we all complained about the poor job the media did in the run-up to the war?  They were cheerleaders for the Bush admin instead of a legitimate information outlet and watchdog for the public.

    Now we don't care just because it is a dem that the media are cheerleading for?

    If the media covered (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Fabian on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 08:30:03 AM EST
    political figures based on substance instead of hype, the presidential candidates would be eclipsed by people like Al Gore.

    Parent
    We need something like the Fairness Doctrine back (none / 0) (#24)
    by misspeach2008 on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 08:40:08 AM EST


    Parent
    seriously... (none / 0) (#19)
    by kredwyn on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 08:24:54 AM EST


    Parent
    McCain Struggles to Find Substance (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 09:49:44 AM EST
    If McCain would offer something that might merit attention he would certainly gain more media attention. The way he is going he isn't competing with Obama, nor will he be competing with Paul.

    The competition for McCain is against his own foibles. It's whether or not the media begins to accentuate his flubs or protects him from such mis-spoken items as naming countries that don't exist, geographical border blunders, and unable to decide if we are trying to win a war or have we already won.

    The media has always adored John McCain. That isn't likely to end soon. If McCain starts to garner attention for his recent lapses, he will begin to wish he wasn't getting media attention at all.

    McCain's problem... (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by desertswine on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 10:06:50 AM EST
    is that he is about as exciting as day old snot.

    Parent
    Luckily for him (none / 0) (#44)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 10:10:56 AM EST
    he was competing against Fred Thompson who couldn't inspire a nun to go to church.

    Parent
    McCain is offering (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 10:19:37 AM EST
    the fact that he is the republican "presumptive" nominee for president of the US.  The media shouldn't need any more than that.  I think it's the media's responsibilty to provide the coverage not because McCain has "earned" it, but because the voters "deserve" it.

    Parent
    this is an election (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 10:39:09 AM EST
    it is not a "game" it is not a "horse race" as the media likes to refer to it.

    The media should be providing coverage of policies and issues and not the most recent gaffe or the "glitz".

    Parent

    Another McCain Issue (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 10:41:37 AM EST
    McCain campaigns 5 days a week tops as he prefers to take weekends off. Whatever works best for him is fine with me. What McCain better hope is the days off keep his batteries charged, because thus far working the five day week hasn't kept him on top of his game.

    Just by simple math McCain should be getting less media attention because he is out and about less...about 29% less to be exact. The media can't cover a candidate that isn't campaigning. This long election season may do the most harm to McCain as it appears thus far he can't keep pace.

    Parent

    Hear, hear. (none / 0) (#61)
    by rottenart on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 10:47:56 AM EST


    Parent
    Go Ron Paul!!! (5.00 / 0) (#49)
    by rottenart on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 10:22:49 AM EST
    Let's see those Republican fractures WIDEN!!!

    oh yeah, ron paul's a real (4.00 / 1) (#7)
    by cpinva on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 11:04:20 PM EST
    piece of work. the libertarians make the republicans look almost benign, by contrast, with their highly developed sense of concern for society as a whole.

    actually, now that i think about it, about the only difference between the two is that libertarians have no problem with choice or drugs.

    give sen. mccain time, something inane will dribble out of his mouth, and he'll make the next news cycle.

    I heard this awhile ago... (none / 0) (#72)
    by Thanin on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 06:16:49 PM EST
    and its always made me chuckle: libertarians are just republicans that smoke pot.

    But aside from that, real libertarians are ok with gay marriage, and as youve said, choice and drugs.  But actually I dont think there is such a thing as a true libertarian.  I mean what moron wouldnt call the fire department if their house was burning down?

    Parent

    I've always considered TalkLeft (2.33 / 3) (#4)
    by myiq2xu on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 10:11:30 PM EST
    a "hard" news site, not a outlet of campaign talking points.

    I hope that isn't changing.

    Oh come now. Surely this is "harder" (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 10:45:52 PM EST
    news than the National Enquirer!  

    Parent
    Im not sure it is... (5.00 / 0) (#9)
    by Thanin on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 12:13:42 AM EST
    but since I enjoy reading negative things about/concerning McSame, its all good.  Good job TChris.  Keep it up.

    Parent
    What are you talking about? (none / 0) (#12)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 06:56:32 AM EST
    I realize you don't like people attacking your guy but can you explain what is wrong with this diary?  

    Ron Paul speaking at the same time as the RNC convention is a talking point?

    Parent

    Acceptance Speech (none / 0) (#1)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 09:51:03 PM EST
    To one up Ron Paul, McCain should move his acceptance speech to the nearest stadium. Of course, that would put him in the Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome. Wouldn't that be ironic.

    Death Valley U Stadium (none / 0) (#2)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 10:00:03 PM EST
    You can make believe you are in Iraq. Millstone on his neck.

    Parent
    Lake Woebegone (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 10:01:01 PM EST


    Parent
    Way Better (none / 0) (#5)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 10:15:09 PM EST


    Parent
    Breaking: Obama's great uncle (none / 0) (#8)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 11:59:43 PM EST
    speaks out; at last:

    DK

    Quick! (2.00 / 0) (#17)
    by Fabian on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 08:22:31 AM EST
    Everyone who had a relative in WWII run for President!  Too bad they didn't use it to springboard a discussion on genocide and the recent capture of Radovan Karadzic.

    It's all about Obama.

    Parent

    just can't bring myself (none / 0) (#18)
    by ccpup on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 08:24:38 AM EST
    to go to DK.  could you offer a quick summary of what was said and why it's newsworthy?

    Thanks!

    Parent

    It's not newsworthy. (2.00 / 0) (#22)
    by Fabian on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 08:31:56 AM EST
    The relative just recounted his experiences which are very much like the experiences every other Allied soldier had with regards to the concentration camps - the prisoners, the bodies, and so on.  He just happens to be related to Obama is all.

    Parent
    Matter of Perspective (5.00 / 0) (#63)
    by daring grace on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 10:53:08 AM EST
    Vets from WWII are in that aging period where they're passing away in greater and greater numbers

    Or smaller and smaller, I guess, as there are fewer and fewer of them left.

    Oral history from the remaining vets is always interesting to me, regardless of whose relative it is. Especially about the death camps which we should never forget.

    Parent

    Way back when (none / 0) (#71)
    by Fabian on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 03:54:10 PM EST
    my mom went back to college for her bachelor's and took a course on the Holocaust.  I read some of her books and saw the pictures.  They were horrific.  Later on I read Maus which is a more personal view.  Eventually I ran across the psychology/sociology experiments that divided subjects into "prisoners" and "guards".  

    I take "Never again!" to mean more than genocide.  Genocide is just the final step in a whole series of steps.  It's not the last steps we fight against, but the first steps that make the last ones possible - torture, rendition and anything that takes away our rights.

    Parent

    Absolutely Agree (none / 0) (#74)
    by daring grace on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 01:06:59 PM EST
    I think the death camps serve to remind us of the extreme, but inevitable outcomes that occur when we let 'little' things' start to slide.

    Our vigilance has to be constant and our engagement against creeping repression and cruelty continually vigorous.

    Sometimes in the last few years it has seemed so (frighteningly) easy for Americans to be ambivalent in the face of previously unthinkable practices like torture and suspensions of constitutional rights.

    Parent

    McCain Competing For Attention | 74 comments (74 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment