| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| ||||
Showing posts with label mccain. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mccain. Show all posts
Friday, November 19, 2010
Jon Stewart on John McCain on DADT
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Why Is McCain Silent on Guns?
Politico.com has a fascinating article about John McCain's having missed an important opportunity by not pushing the Second Amendment agenda.
Guns are a potent force in American politics. As I have pointed out before, had Al Gore won Tennessee, Arkansas or West Virginia — all winnable states — in 2000, he would not have had to win Florida, and he would have become president.
But Gore lost all three states, and guns had a lot to do with it. Gun owners simply didn’t believe Gore when he said he was not going to take their guns away. (They did believe Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996 when he said the same thing, but Clinton sold his “Bubba” image effectively and was far more trusted in small-town and rural America.)
The article makes a convincing argument for the benefits of a Republican campaign using the gun control issue to its benefit, but it doesn't offer much to explain McCain's not doing so.
What do you think could explain it? I was thinking the reason is it's not that important in the big picture, but those examples about Gore tell a different story.
What's your opinion?
Guns are a potent force in American politics. As I have pointed out before, had Al Gore won Tennessee, Arkansas or West Virginia — all winnable states — in 2000, he would not have had to win Florida, and he would have become president.
But Gore lost all three states, and guns had a lot to do with it. Gun owners simply didn’t believe Gore when he said he was not going to take their guns away. (They did believe Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996 when he said the same thing, but Clinton sold his “Bubba” image effectively and was far more trusted in small-town and rural America.)
The article makes a convincing argument for the benefits of a Republican campaign using the gun control issue to its benefit, but it doesn't offer much to explain McCain's not doing so.
What do you think could explain it? I was thinking the reason is it's not that important in the big picture, but those examples about Gore tell a different story.
What's your opinion?
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
The Second Debate - McCain vs. Obama
The New York Times provided a lengthy and what I believe is a comprehensive analysis of the debate. They highlighted 12 items for their veracity check, things like Health Care, Getting Bin Laden and Taxes. What I noticed is that gun control and capital punishment were not mentioned. If they made it into the debate at all, the New York Times considered 12 other things more important. That's interesting considering what we're always talking about on this blog.
What do you think about that? Does it perhaps mean that those two topics are really not as important as we seem to think? I suggested before that the reason some people like and support Palin for VP is because she's pro gun. Of course that was roundly denied. My point was that maybe the gun issue is not all that important in the big picture. But, what about all those claims that it's the 2nd Amendment that protects the 1st Amendment? I don't think I accept that, do you?
One thing I got a kick out of was that Obama's claim of lowering taxes for 95% was exaggerated. But at least it wasn't vague; otherwise it could not have been so precisely analyzed.
Mr. Obama said he is proposing a tax cut for “95 percent of Americans.” But the Tax Policy Center, a non-partisan organization, did some sophisticated modeling of both candidates’ tax proposals and concluded actually only 81 percent of tax filers would get a tax cut under Mr. Obama’s plan.
CNN had this report. And the Declarations of Pride site declares Obama the winner.
What's your opinion? Did Obama really win? Is it simply a case of momentum he's built up since Palin began fading away two weeks ago?
What do you think about that? Does it perhaps mean that those two topics are really not as important as we seem to think? I suggested before that the reason some people like and support Palin for VP is because she's pro gun. Of course that was roundly denied. My point was that maybe the gun issue is not all that important in the big picture. But, what about all those claims that it's the 2nd Amendment that protects the 1st Amendment? I don't think I accept that, do you?
One thing I got a kick out of was that Obama's claim of lowering taxes for 95% was exaggerated. But at least it wasn't vague; otherwise it could not have been so precisely analyzed.
Mr. Obama said he is proposing a tax cut for “95 percent of Americans.” But the Tax Policy Center, a non-partisan organization, did some sophisticated modeling of both candidates’ tax proposals and concluded actually only 81 percent of tax filers would get a tax cut under Mr. Obama’s plan.
CNN had this report. And the Declarations of Pride site declares Obama the winner.
What's your opinion? Did Obama really win? Is it simply a case of momentum he's built up since Palin began fading away two weeks ago?
Monday, September 29, 2008
John McCain the Gambler
The New York Times has run an exposé over the last two days of John McCain's gambling ties . He has been involved in the intricate and ruthless business of casino gambling in America for decades both as a behind-the-scenes wheeler dealer and as a player.
(Big H/T to George)
As a two-time chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee, Mr. McCain has done more than any other member of Congress to shape the laws governing America’s casinos, helping to transform the once-sleepy Indian gambling business into a $26-billion-a-year behemoth with 423 casinos across the country. He has won praise as a champion of economic development and self-governance on reservations.
Once the Native American Gambling Business grew to this extent, largely due to McCain's efforts, the Senator's patrons in Las Vegas began to be concerned.
In the spring of 2005, Mr. McCain announced he was planning a sweeping overhaul of Indian gambling laws, including limiting off-reservation casinos. His campaign said Las Vegas had nothing to do with it. In a 2005 interview with The Oregonian, Mr. McCain said that if Congress did not act, “soon every Indian tribe is going to have a casino in downtown, metropolitan areas.”
Carl Artman, who served as the Interior Department’s assistant secretary of Indian Affairs until May, said Mr. McCain pushed him to rewrite the off-reservation rules. “It became one of my top priorities because Senator McCain made it clear it was one of his top priorities,” he said.
The new guidelines were issued on Jan. 4. As a result, the casino applications of 11 tribes were rejected.
Besides being involved behind the scenes, John McCain himself is a high-stakes player. From Arizona, he was known to make weekend jaunts up to Vegas, about once a month, where he was wined and dined like any High Roller with influence in Washington.
Perhaps one of the unspoken implications of the NY Times piece is that the kind of person who gambles by playing Native American interests against those of Las Vegas, the kind of person who personally likes to throw the dice in high stakes crap shoots in casinos, would bring that "maverick" attitude into the White House, should he be elected president.
What do you think? Is taking weekend trips to Vegas to let your hair down incompatible with the Office of President? Is there something disonorable in representing Native American interests then changing teams and going to bat for Vegas? Do you think taking Sarah Palin on as a running mate was an example of reckless gambling? Is gambling a vice?
Please leave us your thoughts in a comment.
(Big H/T to George)
As a two-time chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee, Mr. McCain has done more than any other member of Congress to shape the laws governing America’s casinos, helping to transform the once-sleepy Indian gambling business into a $26-billion-a-year behemoth with 423 casinos across the country. He has won praise as a champion of economic development and self-governance on reservations.
Once the Native American Gambling Business grew to this extent, largely due to McCain's efforts, the Senator's patrons in Las Vegas began to be concerned.
In the spring of 2005, Mr. McCain announced he was planning a sweeping overhaul of Indian gambling laws, including limiting off-reservation casinos. His campaign said Las Vegas had nothing to do with it. In a 2005 interview with The Oregonian, Mr. McCain said that if Congress did not act, “soon every Indian tribe is going to have a casino in downtown, metropolitan areas.”
Carl Artman, who served as the Interior Department’s assistant secretary of Indian Affairs until May, said Mr. McCain pushed him to rewrite the off-reservation rules. “It became one of my top priorities because Senator McCain made it clear it was one of his top priorities,” he said.
The new guidelines were issued on Jan. 4. As a result, the casino applications of 11 tribes were rejected.
Besides being involved behind the scenes, John McCain himself is a high-stakes player. From Arizona, he was known to make weekend jaunts up to Vegas, about once a month, where he was wined and dined like any High Roller with influence in Washington.
Perhaps one of the unspoken implications of the NY Times piece is that the kind of person who gambles by playing Native American interests against those of Las Vegas, the kind of person who personally likes to throw the dice in high stakes crap shoots in casinos, would bring that "maverick" attitude into the White House, should he be elected president.
What do you think? Is taking weekend trips to Vegas to let your hair down incompatible with the Office of President? Is there something disonorable in representing Native American interests then changing teams and going to bat for Vegas? Do you think taking Sarah Palin on as a running mate was an example of reckless gambling? Is gambling a vice?
Please leave us your thoughts in a comment.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
McCain Suspends Campaign to Fight for Country
Senator John McCain announced that he would suspend his campaign in order to work from Washington on the bailout plan. He suggested that Obama do the same and that their anxiously-awaited debate scheduled for tomorrow be postponed.
CNN reports on the summons to the White House Thursday of the two candidates.
"Now is a time to come together -- Democrats and Republicans -- in a spirit of cooperation for the sake of the American people,"
Now if that isn't the biggest bunch of nonsense I've ever heard, I don't know what is. After taking a nosedive in the polls, suddenly the Republican candidate pulls this trick. To me it's a transparent but plausible lie, which after the trouncing Obama gives him in the general election, will come very handy to save face for himself and the party. You see, for them nothing is more important than furthering the enmity between liberal and conservative, between Democrat and Republican. It's exactly the opposite of what he said.
The liberaltruthsayer said this: "What a maverick."
Over at The Podium the title of the post says it all: "BULLSHIT, BULLSHIT, BULLSHIT!!!"
In order to maintain my long-standing tradition of Fair and Balanced Reporting, on the site entitled Libertas 01, we find the predictable conservative spin. Many of the commenters weren't fooled though.
I'm sticking with my original prediction.
What do you think?
CNN reports on the summons to the White House Thursday of the two candidates.
"Now is a time to come together -- Democrats and Republicans -- in a spirit of cooperation for the sake of the American people,"
Now if that isn't the biggest bunch of nonsense I've ever heard, I don't know what is. After taking a nosedive in the polls, suddenly the Republican candidate pulls this trick. To me it's a transparent but plausible lie, which after the trouncing Obama gives him in the general election, will come very handy to save face for himself and the party. You see, for them nothing is more important than furthering the enmity between liberal and conservative, between Democrat and Republican. It's exactly the opposite of what he said.
The liberaltruthsayer said this: "What a maverick."
Over at The Podium the title of the post says it all: "BULLSHIT, BULLSHIT, BULLSHIT!!!"
In order to maintain my long-standing tradition of Fair and Balanced Reporting, on the site entitled Libertas 01, we find the predictable conservative spin. Many of the commenters weren't fooled though.
I'm sticking with my original prediction.
What do you think?
Monday, September 1, 2008
Bristol Palin Pregnant at Seventeen
CNN reports on the pregnancy of Sarah Palin's seventeen-year-old daughter, Bristol. According to the article, this represents no threat or problem, John McCain even knew about it beforehand. In fact, the whole Palin family is fine with it, the only important thing being that the "A" word is not even mentioned. Keeping the baby is all that counts.
Sarah and Todd Palin issued a statement saying they are "proud of Bristol's decision to have her baby and even prouder to become grandparents."
How about admitting it's a difficult moment for the family? What is all this nonsense about being proud? What about all the screaming and tears that goes on behind closed doors in situations like this? Or are these people robots? I haven't met too many parents who are OK with their teenage daughter having premarital sex, especially if those parents are on the right religiously and politically.
And what is it with all this emphasis on her "keeping the baby." In a family where the mother is a pro-life politician experiencing global attention, was there any other possibility? Did young Bristol consider abortion and go to mom for advice? I seriously doubt it. So why keep repeating the "keeping the baby" bit.
The McCain aide insisted a key point to keep in mind is that Bristol decided to keep the baby, a decision "supported by her parents."
I think they're shameless political spin doctors, whoever is responsible for the repetition. Serious pro-life folks have no option and no need to keep repeating it.
I'm pro-choice. The best argument for pro-choice that I've heard, and heard many times from the feminists is that they do not want the government controlling their uteruses. Amen to that.
What's your opinion. Please leave a comment.
Sarah and Todd Palin issued a statement saying they are "proud of Bristol's decision to have her baby and even prouder to become grandparents."
How about admitting it's a difficult moment for the family? What is all this nonsense about being proud? What about all the screaming and tears that goes on behind closed doors in situations like this? Or are these people robots? I haven't met too many parents who are OK with their teenage daughter having premarital sex, especially if those parents are on the right religiously and politically.
And what is it with all this emphasis on her "keeping the baby." In a family where the mother is a pro-life politician experiencing global attention, was there any other possibility? Did young Bristol consider abortion and go to mom for advice? I seriously doubt it. So why keep repeating the "keeping the baby" bit.
The McCain aide insisted a key point to keep in mind is that Bristol decided to keep the baby, a decision "supported by her parents."
I think they're shameless political spin doctors, whoever is responsible for the repetition. Serious pro-life folks have no option and no need to keep repeating it.
I'm pro-choice. The best argument for pro-choice that I've heard, and heard many times from the feminists is that they do not want the government controlling their uteruses. Amen to that.
What's your opinion. Please leave a comment.
Sunday, August 24, 2008
McCain vs. Obama/Biden
Thanks to Real Clear Politics for the stats below. It's certainly clear that Obama's lead has shrunk since a little over a month ago when I last published the RCP stats.
What I'm curious to see is what effect the selection of Joe Biden will have. Naturally the opinions of experts are mixed. Reid Wilson wrote a nice piece yesterday entitled, "Why Biden is the Perfect Pick."
Clearly, Biden's experience in Washington ensures that he cannot adopt the same outsider mantle Obama owns. But Obama's brand, like McCain's, is so strong on its own that it doesn't need to be augmented by further change. Instead, Obama had weaknesses and gaps to fill, and he chose a candidate who did just that.
CNN reports that in his first public appearance with Obama in Springfield, Senator Biden launched into an attack of McCain, a fairly predictable one I might add.
Election 2008 | Obama | McCain | Spread |
| RCP National Average | 45.0 | 43.4 | Obama +1.6 |
| Favorable Ratings | +18.3 | +16.2 | Obama +2.1 |
| Intrade Market Odds | 62.1 | 36.6 | - |
| Electoral College | Obama | McCain | Toss Ups |
| RCP Electoral Count | 228 | 174 | 136 |
| No Toss Up States | 264 | 274 | - |
| Battleground States | Obama | McCain | Spread |
| Ohio | 44.7 | 45.7 | McCain +1.0 |
| Michigan | 46.0 | 42.0 | Obama +4.0 |
| Minnesota | 47.5 | 43.0 | Obama +4.5 |
| Colorado | 45.3 | 45.8 | McCain +0.5 |
| Virginia | 45.7 | 46.3 | McCain +0.6 |
| Florida | 44.8 | 47.4 | McCain +2.6 |
What I'm curious to see is what effect the selection of Joe Biden will have. Naturally the opinions of experts are mixed. Reid Wilson wrote a nice piece yesterday entitled, "Why Biden is the Perfect Pick."
Clearly, Biden's experience in Washington ensures that he cannot adopt the same outsider mantle Obama owns. But Obama's brand, like McCain's, is so strong on its own that it doesn't need to be augmented by further change. Instead, Obama had weaknesses and gaps to fill, and he chose a candidate who did just that.
CNN reports that in his first public appearance with Obama in Springfield, Senator Biden launched into an attack of McCain, a fairly predictable one I might add.
"John McCain ... served our country with extreme courage, and I know he wants to do right by America," he said of his Senate colleague and the presumptive Republican presidential nominee. "But the harsh truth is loud and clear: You can't change America when you supported George Bush's policies 95 percent of the time."
He also seized on a McCain comment from this week when he could not remember how many houses he owns and said McCain was out of touch with the "kitchen-table" issues that working families face.
I'm hoping that the stats produced by Real Clear Politics do not indicate an inexorable slide in Obama's formidable lead. And if they do, that the naming of Senator Joe Biden will mark a rejuvenation of what has been so far a very impressive campaign.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Bitch Ph.D. vs. Bill Donohue
Today I read a tremendously entertaining post over at the great blog Bitch Ph.D. It seems Bill Donohue has called for her removal as one of the official Democratic National Convention bloggers. Why? Well, here it is in his own words (link to the Catholic League post here):
“On the home page of Bitch Ph.D. there is a picture of two children: one of them is shown flashing his middle finger. Today’s lead post, which was written August 17, is called ‘Jesus Christ.’ It begins with, ‘I’m a really crappy Catholic who hasn’t been to mass in ages because most parishes around here ‘will’ insist on being aggressively anti-abortion….’
He has more complaints, but to me it sounds like a bunch of whining and intolerance. What could be more ridiculous than complaining about someone not liking balloon Jesus toys? But, the call for removal of certain bloggers from covering the DNC sounds awfully close to censorship to me. Trying to rally the troops, the fundamentalist Catholic troops in this case, to remove or boycott or censor, to me violates one of the foundation principals of America.
Glen Greenwald's interview of Donohue over at Salon.com brought out one interesting thing. He rejects McCain. Maybe he's not all bad after all.
“On the home page of Bitch Ph.D. there is a picture of two children: one of them is shown flashing his middle finger. Today’s lead post, which was written August 17, is called ‘Jesus Christ.’ It begins with, ‘I’m a really crappy Catholic who hasn’t been to mass in ages because most parishes around here ‘will’ insist on being aggressively anti-abortion….’
He has more complaints, but to me it sounds like a bunch of whining and intolerance. What could be more ridiculous than complaining about someone not liking balloon Jesus toys? But, the call for removal of certain bloggers from covering the DNC sounds awfully close to censorship to me. Trying to rally the troops, the fundamentalist Catholic troops in this case, to remove or boycott or censor, to me violates one of the foundation principals of America.
Glen Greenwald's interview of Donohue over at Salon.com brought out one interesting thing. He rejects McCain. Maybe he's not all bad after all.
Among the many groups which McCain's new associate has targeted for hateful bigotry are Catholics. As a result, The Catholic League today issued a statement -- entitled "McCain Embraces Bigot" -- which pointed out that Hagee:
has waged an unrelenting war against the Catholic Church. For example, he likes calling it "The Great Whore," an "apostate church," the "anti-Christ," and a "false cult system."The Catholic League demanded that McCain repudiate Hagee and his endorsement, just as Barack Obama did earlier this week with Louis Farrakhan (despite the fact that Obama, unlike McCain with Hagee, never sought out or accepted Farrakhan's endorsement).
Sunday, August 17, 2008
McCain is an ABBA Fan
It seems candidate John McCain was asked to list his favorite songs. Dancing Queen by ABBA was number one. On the Lawyers, Guns and Money blog, there's a very humorous connection with the Australian poll that declared McCain's favorite song The Gayest Song of All Time.
Over at the wonderful blog of Bob Cesca, there's a video in which the Senator explains his taste in music. I thought he came off fairly well. I agree it was weird that he brought up his war record in connection with his not having much musical taste or interest, but overall I thought he was pretty smooth. It reminded me of Levon.
Over at the wonderful blog of Bob Cesca, there's a video in which the Senator explains his taste in music. I thought he came off fairly well. I agree it was weird that he brought up his war record in connection with his not having much musical taste or interest, but overall I thought he was pretty smooth. It reminded me of Levon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)