US General Election: McCain vs. Obama

Remove all ads!

I think the McCain camp has simply decided to target topics the right is concerned about. I don't know if this is because they are out of touch or have decided to give up. They should have been focusing on issues for the moderates and independants.

Topics that should be pressed by McCain (if he wanted to win) would be:

1. Tax and spend. The Obama campaign is basically same old democratic party campaign. Give the taxpayers the treasury and have them pay for it. There is really no 'change' here.

2. $600 million dollars raised by the Obama camp. This is an extrordinary figure when you consider they claim to have received the vast majority of the funds as individual donations of less than $200 each. The numbers just don't add up. His camp has apparently ignored basic standards to prevent fraud. There's something wrong here.

For Obama's part, he just needs to keep the McCain = Bush rhetoric (even though it isn't true).

 

This would be the Democratic Party which reduced spending the last time they had the Oval Office. As opposed to the GOP, which managed rather the opposite in its last five terms (well, in fairness Bush the Better did not increase spending, he simply didn't decrease it).

Except this isn't true. Because as it happens, I know some American citizens who contributed from overseas via credit card. And they were required to provide their passport number; the Obama campaign would not accept payment until that had been done.

 

Actually, if you read what I wrote, I do not believe this to be true. It just troubles the heck out of me that he hasn't been able to prove that it isn't true. How hard would it be for him to release an official birth certificate?

 

Oh, and may I say how entirely unsurprising it is that Snook is disseminating false information?

 

AMaster -- I agree to some extent , but that is the public perception. It is akin to the McCain = Bush that I mentioned as well....

I will stand by the campaign financing statement until I see proof otherwise. Thus far I've only seen articles which support questioning the internet financing policies in affect (and from many different sources, not just FOX).

 

So instead of being "in the PLO" he was "advising and representing the PLO". Now that I know this I feel so much more comfortable about Obama's association with him

I'm very disappointed. After all of those points I posted, this is the one you chose to comment on?

EDIT: Do we have a sarcasm smiley? If not, we need one.

 

Fair enough. Although, given that it was you who posted the article, and given that we all know how you feel about Obama, I think you'd have to admit that it isn't unreasonable to conclude that you agreed with it.

 

It is of course perfectly reasonable for you to be disturbed by the fact that Khalidi advised (not represented) people at a peace conference. Whatever could he have been thinking?

 

Actually, I did not bother to read any of it, and often don't. I'm more interested in the opinions of people posting on this board. It's better if you do your own writing, and just post the link to demonstrate that you researched what you posted. If I wanted to read the editorial section of the WSJ, (or whatever), I would, and the same goes for all the cut-and-paste stuff that others post from other sources, (like chain mails), I would just go to their page and read it for myself. But I'm more interested in what the members here are writing. So when I see a long page of quote, with no member content of his/her own, I just skip over it.

 

Actually, there are some reports that McCain has had ties with Khalidi back in the 1990s! Of course, you won't believe these reports because they are from "liberal media sources" such as

The Free Republic and The Huffington Post or check out Countdown (at about the one minute mark of the video). In fact, it looks like McCain actually PAID Khalidi to work for him.

And of course we all know that you are above posting things from right-wing sites, so I probably shouldn't post things from left-wing sites.

 

Try contributing via his website and tell us what happens
By which I mean, fair enough.

 

I didn't follow the Khalidi story too closely (as I think Sarah Palin was once again, as we say, looking for a calf under the bull, but yes, it did appear a committee of some sort McCain was on gave some money to an organization Khalidi was on. Of course, we learn about Obama's "associations" with him. Oh great, Obama was talked to a Palestinian member of the faculty of Chicago U. Should we then hold McCain responsible for everything that members of the US Navy he's see and talked to have done - before, during and after their meeting? Sounds kinda... overblown.

From what I know, it's not like Obama publicly endorsed Khalidi's views, like Palin did for the AIP. But hey, perhaps if Palin is loud and obnoxious enough no one will get in a word to ask about their side's shady friends, or about how exactly their plan on the economy and social security will work, etc, etc.

 

Once again, if the Khalidi thing is no big deal, then release the video and prove it. The LA times refusing to release it just looks bad. Does anyone think if they had a video of Palin saying something derogatory about "The Jews" that they wouldn't release it?

I think we are seeing a clear pattern of the type of people Obama associates with. I am sure that McCain has met with people he probably wishes he hasn't also, but overall I'm not seeing the same type of pattern. By the same token I'm sure Obama has met with a conservative or two in his life, but the overall pattern is disturbing to me and many others. It may not be enough to cost him the election, but clearly McCain is on the correct path by focusing on it.

You have to remember, people who have made up their mind already are not going to change it. I can't even imagine the faux pas that would be necessary for me to vote for Obama or for Death Rabbit to vote for McCain. It is the undecided that matter and I firmly believe that these character and association issues will be far more damaging to Obama then to McCain. I think Obama has exhausted all the goodwill he can out of "Change" and "McCain = Bush". If he can't come up with something else, he may be in trouble, at least I'm hoping so.

 

Snook, we are seeing this "pattern" because it is being driven down our throats by the attacks of his political opponents. Chances are, Obama associates with 10 times as many conservatives, but we don't see that pattern because nobody talks about it. And we are not seeing such a pattern about McCain because, by and large, Obama's campaign is not going in that direction - maybe because they're in the lead so there's no need to go negative, maybe because they just don't want to. Yet every time the dust rises up, it turns out the McCain campaign is far from blameless either. We'll see if the liberal media mention McCain (in the IRI) funding Khalidi's Center for Palestine Research and Studies. Yet we hadn't heard anything about McCain's IRI work at all before this came up.

Spoiler

I personally don't consider it that important either (given how the majority of Palestinians view Israeli policies, most Palestinian groups will have people who aren't too fond of Israel), but I'm not the one that is telling the American people to be concerned about Obama's connections.

I'm just wondering, how many people here have casual acquaintances or not-too-close friends who have very different social, political, or religious views? I'd say "the majority".

 

Especially since two of his evil associates are, y'know, professors at the school he was a professor at. Can't imagine how they might have come together, no sir.

Anyway, it appears that when I said the Economist essentially endorsed McCain, I was mistaken. They endorse Obama. And do a far better, more sane job of summing up the pros and cons of both candidates than any right-wing blog (shocking, that).

 

AMaster -- "Senior Lecturer" which is one step above adjunct status. He was offered a tenure-track position (i.e., Professor), but turned it down. I understand he was quite good.

 

Right, my mistake.

 

Well, I still wouldn't hold it against him, even if he did. I think it's important to get everyone's point of view on the issues.

 

Just how hard is it to turn off all the security features that normal websites have against credit card fraud?
Hey Tal, can you help us here?
Sorry AMaster i just don't believe you that you had friends that contributed & were asked for their passport #'s when so many others haven't.

 

It's too bad you didn't bother to research this any further than the conservative blogs who are wishing this to be true. But it isn't. But I'm sure you will still be "concerned" about this, even after there is significant evidence to the contrary. But I'll give it a shot anyway:

Source: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/15106_Page2.html