[Michael Pouliot]

I doubt this 57-states gaffe will find any traction outside of the conservative blogosphere.

McCain and Hildebeast burned a lot of cred by backing that stupid gas tax holiday.

I'd still be shocked if Obama didn't win the general election by at least 10 points.

[Lingster]

Lastly, how do you know the extent to which McCain knows them?

Um, the burden is on you to show that McCain is buddy-buddy with them.  You're the one making the assertion that McCain's relationship with these two guys is akin to Obama's documented, intimate, long-lasting relationship with Wright.  I never heard of Hagee or Parsley until two weeks ago, and I've been following Republican politics for more than 20 years.

When I say Islam is a "worldview", I also include all religions in that category.  Worldview is a superset.  Catholicism is a worldview, too.

Islam happens to be a worldview I find repugnant, backward and counter-productive.

[Lingster]

I'd still be shocked if Obama didn't win the general election by at least 10 points.

Prepare to be shocked.  I expect McCain to win by 10 points, and Obama will go down like McGovern or Mondale.

[cpbell0033944]

Um, the burden is on you to show that McCain is buddy-buddy with them.  You're the one making the assertion that McCain's relationship with these two guys is akin to Obama's documented,

This I have already done.  McCain called Parsley a special advisor, and has appeared on stage at at least one capaign rally with Hagee.  The video evidence of the latter is out there.  Perhaps Obama's links with the undeniably odious Wright go back further in time, but McCain is or has been involved with three controversial figures compared to one in the case of Obama.  With all due respect, I find the fact that I, as a curius Brit with no stake and no right to vote in November heard of these important people influencing the GOPs' nominees' background before you, a politically-interested American rather baffling and worrying.  Surely it's a good idea to make sure that you know who you're voting for?  I don't know which, if any news shows and cable channels you watch and which online news sites you visit, but your situation appears to me as symptomatic of the pro-GOP bias or wariness of displeasing the party on behalf of American news media.  You can lob all the brickbats you want at MSNBC and Olbermann, but I learned of these people's existence by watching excerpts from Countdown on YouTube.  I then researched them on the net to ensure that I wasn't relying on one (supposedly biased) source.

BTW, on the subject of bias, I am incredulous as to how Fox News gets-away with calling itself "Fair and Balanced" when any reasonably impartial observer with common sense can see that they are pro-Republican and generally right-of-centre.  Not that I disagree with that, I just think they should be open and honest.  It's also amusing that Bill O'Reilly calls the Factor "The No-Spin Zone" when he spins more than a Shane Warne flipper (look it up, non-cricket fans! :D).

[cpbell0033944]

Links to prove my points:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwW3btvk_KQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HS9F7O2lhWg

Watch this and tell me that Parsley seems sane to you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXZbIGJrDkg

WTF has race got to do with it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMaaDbGgsKA&feature=related

[Lingster]

Look, you're missing the point.  You're delving into endless discussion on two people who will have no impact in November, to try to prove a point that is demonstrably false, disingenuous and not relevant.

McCain has been in the public spotlight for about 40 years, since he became a POW during Vietnam.  He's been in federal elected office for more than 25 years, since he ran for Congress in 1982.  His catalog of sponsored and passed legislation is vast.  His associates and preferences have been vetted, decades ago.  He is a known quantity.

Obama is not.  He is a first-term U.S. senator with no substantial legislative accomplishments.  Prior to this he served in the Illinois legislature, where he was likewise transparent.  He is running away from people like Bill Ayers and Rev. Wright, who were his 'community' associates in Chicago. 

The fact is that Obama has had recent, involved political relationships with people who are very fishy.  McCain has not.  The last time McCain was involved in anything fishy was almost 20 years ago, during the Charles Keating scandal, and he's been squeaky clean ever since.  So this is a challenge for the Obama campaign, and it is asymmetrical because McCain faces no genuine comparable challenge, the best efforts of the Nation, Mother Jones and other leftwing rags notwithstanding.

[cpbell0033944]

Look, you're missing the point.  You're delving into endless discussion on two people who will have no impact in November, to try to prove a point that is demonstrably false, disingenuous and not relevant.

McCain has been in the public spotlight for about 40 years, since he became a POW during Vietnam.  He's been in federal elected office for more than 25 years, since he ran for Congress in 1982.  His catalog of sponsored and passed legislation is vast.  His associates and preferences have been vetted, decades ago.  He is a known quantity.

Obama is not.  He is a first-term U.S. senator with no substantial legislative accomplishments.  Prior to this he served in the Illinois legislature, where he was likewise transparent.  He is running away from people like Bill Ayers and Rev. Wright, who were his 'community' associates in Chicago. 

The fact is that Obama has had recent, involved political relationships with people who are very fishy.  McCain has not.  The last time McCain was involved in anything fishy was almost 20 years ago, during the Charles Keating scandal, and he's been squeaky clean ever since.  So this is a challenge for the Obama campaign, and it is asymmetrical because McCain faces no genuine comparable challenge, the best efforts of the Nation, Mother Jones and other leftwing rags notwithstanding.

It won't matter in November because voters are notoriously predictable in what they base their decision on.  It was once said that Republican supporters would vote for a donkey if it were the GOP candidate, and I'm sure there are many Democrats who are the same.  What I'm doing is pointing-out that the simplistic, Fox News view of the situation which says "Obama = bad, McCain = squeaky-clean" isn't as simple as that.  Also, your argument is not far from Hank saying "Well, my cousin Billy-Bob down in Alabama says that Obama wants to segregate whites, so he's gonna vote McCain, and Billy-Bob's always right, so I'm gonna vote McCain too" or somesuch nonsense based on a ridiculous extrapolation of the truth of what Wright said instead of finding-out the truth for himself.

You're also resorting to the experience argument.  Yes, experience is important, but there was once before an inexperienced, maverick Illinois senator who earned his party's nomination, and he became the best President you've ever had.  In addition, Obama has a good record of gaining cross-party support for Bills, which would be an enviable quality in a President after the divisions of the past. 

I'm also baffled as to how McCains' saccharine-laden praising of both men is irrelevant.  The would-be President of a nation whose founders based its Constitution on the separation of Church and State regards two extremeist theologians to be great people and you're not concerned?  I'm concerned about whether Obama truly rejects Wright, but you don't give a damn about two divisive preachers having the ear of McCain?  I can't remember if you said who your original preferred Republican candidate was, but I'm guessing from your views here that you didn't bat an eyelid when Huckabee said that he'd re-write the Constitution to fit the word of God.  Your country was founded not to kill people who bow towards the East, nor to give Evangelists special preference, but as a country that provided a safe haven for those whose ancestors had fled religious persecution in the Old World.  If the people want the US to become a Christian theocracy, then that's their perogative, but future Presidents had better not try to impose theocracy on other countries, as Islamic theocracies do, unless they want their international reputation to drop lower than it's become in the last 8 years.

[Lingster]

Huckabee's a loon.  Parsley and Hagee may or may not be, but it doesn't matter because they ain't gonna be president.

[Hunter S Creek]

It is interesting that Senator Obama happened to pick "57 states".

Although at last count there were only 50 states in America; currently there are actually 57 states in Islam.

http://www.oic-un.org/

Tschuss!
Hunter

[cpbell0033944]

It is interesting that Senator Obama happened to pick "57 states".

Although at last count there were only 50 states in America; currently there are actually 57 states in Islam.

http://www.oic-un.org/

Tschuss!
Hunter

He didn't "pick" 57 states, he just had a moment of losing it.  He isn't Muslim either, if that's what you're hinting.

[Author]

Posts