Jump to content

brown110

Member
  • Content Count

    123
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

brown110 last won the day on August 1 2007

brown110 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

46 Good

About brown110

  • Rank
    Longtime Member
  • Birthday 01/10/1991
  1. Why is the RNC any worse than the DNC with respect to attack ads? The RNC certainly isnt the only one making them. The DNC and moveon.org and the like have made the same types of ads and attacks on McCain. You want guilt by association? How about liberals trying to tie McCain to every lobbyist under the sun? Even better, how about that slanderous "article" by the New York Times about McCain? It goes both ways. I'm sick of hearing about the "GOP attack machine". If you want it to end, pick a strong candidate or make some better ads. For better or for worse, this is politics and no one, including Obama, is above it. I wont touch the first part. We obviously have different views on the end game in Iraq, but thats a different debate for a different day. But, you agreed the quote was taken out of context, proving there's no difference between the RNC and DNC on that, so the crux of this debate is whether a candidate should be held responsible for their surrogates words. And Obama is responsible for his wife's words when shes on the stump for him. If he doesnt want people to "pick on her" then tell her to stop doing events. I mean, if those comments dont count, arent you essentially saying to not believe anything she says while campaigning for him? Besides, without accountability for the candidates when their surrogates speak, politics would get much uglier than they are now very quickly. Jack Kemp said that Barack Obama was a secret Muslim sleeper cell from Al Qaida? Who cares, McCain didnt say it, just his supporter.
  2. Since when did apologies ever kill ads? Besides, thats an easy argument to kill. The argument is that she didnt misspeak, but rather she meant what she said, and only apologized because she saw the negative reaction to the comments. The comment is probably taken a bit out of context, because I dont really believe someone who has benefited so much from America really could really dislike our country so much. But, since when has the context of a comment ever really mattered in politics? Besides, she never really apologized. She just tried to clarify her remarks. In the same way McCain still gets hammered for his 100 years comment thats taken out of context, the Obama camp should expect to be hammered for this comment. And Poneill, I'll agree McCain and the national GOP want to win, but dont forget the national party and McCain didnt make this ad, it was the Tennessee state GOP. It is not the McCain camp's ad, and McCain did not endorse the ad. While we're at denouncing ads made on comments made off of comments taken a bit out of context, why hasnt Obama demanded the 100 years ad the DNC made be pulled? Its obvious what he meant is not what the ad is saying, much in the same way Michelle probably didnt mean what that other ad is saying. And retired, I find it amusing that for someone crying about how bad a personal attack on Michelle Obama was does not hesitate to take jabs at Cindy McCain's character. Michelle would not be an issue if she didnt make herself one. As I said before, I think her comments were taken out of context, but that doesnt change the fact that theyre fair game. If Obama wants to make an ad about ties the McCains have to lobbyists, he is more than welcome to.
  3. This wasnt the national GOP with this ad. Dont try to tie this to McCain. But, the ad is probably fair game. She may be Obama's wife, but shes also an official surrogate for the campaign. When she fucks up, like she did with the proud comment, she should be called on it. A personal attack on her as a person is below the belt, but the comments were at an official Barack Obama event where she was acting as a surrogate for her husbands campaign. I havent seen the video (anyone care to post a link?) but from what I've heard of it, the comment was just played over some people talking about how proud they are of America. If that's really all it was, its fair game. It's no different than Cindy McCain or Jack Kemp or anyone else saying something stupid at a McCain rally, if they were to do so, any attacks or ads made with those comments are fair game for Democrats to use. If a surrogate says stupid shit while expressing the views of the campaign, why shouldn't the candidate be held accountable?
  4. A ground invasion would inevitably come at some point if there were strikes, likely very shortly after. After we attack, Iran and its allies will retaliate. Israel is likely the first and the policy of just about every leader is to treat an attack on Israel as an attack on the United States. To repel Iranian (as well as possibly Russian, Chinese, and some other Arab nations) forces, we would be forced to deploy forces into Israel. I'll agree, a terrorist attack would probably help McCain because he is seen as tougher on terror than Obama is. However, a preemptive strike isnt exactly the same thing as a terrorist attack. In a political climate where the last preemptive military operation is so unpopular, another one cant possibly help the incumbent party. Bush is generally a sane individual, and there was at least something resembling reason behind most of his decisions. There is no logic to this. The surge was something a lot of his military leaders said would work (and this is probably for another discussion, but probably did work). I also think the tax cuts worked, but again, thats probably best left for later. That doesn't mean I dont have my disagreeements with him. No Child Left Behind meddles in what should be left to the states, as does his proposed ban on same-sex marriage. But even if Bush and Cheney are insane and irrational in every way, and even if they really want to attack, they couldnt. There is literally no support for a strike on Iran, and there is no personnel or money for the job. The only scenario for a strike on Iran during this administration is for Iran to strike first, a scenario that is unlikely at best.
  5. You'd have to be crazy to believe Bush would bomb Iran. Even if Bush and Cheney want to, there is absolutely no way they could. The military is overstreched enough as it is, and there isnt enough money to do this and there arent enough troops. Bush and Cheney, no matter what you think of them, are not nearly stupid enough to do something like this, especially given the warm relations Tehran has with Moscow and Beijing. And Synergy, a strike on Iran wouldnt screw Obama. The second Bush pushes that button, McCain is fucked. Not only would McCain be fucked, the Republican party itself would likely begin to fade away.
  6. Actually, if Jeb Bush had a different last name, he'd already be on the ticket. He was a wildly popular governor in Florida, probably delivering that state if there was ever any doubt. He's definately conservative enough to mend fences with the base. Popular among hispanics, both Cuban and non-Cuban. His wife is from Mexico, and his sons are fluent in Spanish, a definate asset, especially in an election where the opponent has had trouble connection with Latino voters. I would personally love Jeb as VP, unfortunately signs saying McCain-Bush would end this election about 3 seconds after Jeb was named the VP. I would agree he still has a lot of problems with social conservatives, but there is no viable VP candidate who would really help with both social and fiscal conservatives. And I realize he called Jerry Falwell and the like agents of intolerance, but since then hes made nice (for the most part), and I think his victory in South Carolina shows hes mended at least some fences with religious conservatives. 6 out of 10 voters there said they were born again christians and McCain finished a in a respectable 2nd place among that group, while doubling up Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney. But at this point, social conservatives are essentially what African-Americans are to the Democratic party. Even if the candidate does absolutely nothing for them, they've shown they'll probably still turn out. Fiscal conservatives will probably give Bob Barr a look as a protest vote since McCain really is no friend of tax cuts. He voted for higher taxes 50 times, and he voted against the Bush tax cuts. He voted multiple times against getting rid of the death tax and lowering the capital gains tax. While McCain has been a generally solid social conservative (save the McCain-Feingold piece of shit), his record shows him as nothing but another tax-and-spend liberal, and unless he shows something to fiscal conservatives, I'd be surprised to see him do very strongly in November.
  7. brown110

    30 Days

    http://www.house.gov/jec/cost-gov/regs/minimum/against/against.htm
  8. brown110

    30 Days

    How would raising the minimum wage help those workers? Its been pretty well documented that whenever the minimum wage is raised, hundreds of thousands of jobs are lost, generally at the low, unskilled worker level. Even those who kept their jobs would not get much help. A single parent with two children living in California would gain only 26 cents from a 90 cent increase in the minimum wage because of a loss of a lot of benefits such as food stamps.
  9. Not really. A majority actually think there should be more restrictions on abortion.
  10. My bad, I thought he was up this year. And although he said he will run, 2 years is a long time, especially for someone battling Hodgkin's.
  11. Doubtful. After Obama's 2004 speech at the Democratic Convention Matthews said he felt a chill in his leg. This year after a set of primaries (I forget which) he felt a "thrill". The man loves Obama, and when he says things like "When are we going to get to vote against this damn war?" I find it hard to believe he would vote for a pro-war candidate.
  12. Also, we could lose Specter's PA seat if he decides not to run due to his cancer. If he runs, he should be able to hold his seat, possibly easily. But, I would agree that Louisiana is probably the only shot Republicans have at picking up a seat. Bush actually has a slightly favorable rating (49-48) and its been trending Republican recently, as evidenced by Bobby Jindal's 37 point win in the gubernatorial race there in October.
  13. Obama just needs to make sure he keeps biden away from any transcripts of any Kinnock speeches...
  14. Well, I dont agree with it, but you have a right to free speech, even if it is racist.
  15. I would argue that the reason Willie Horton and the swift boat ads were successful was not just because they were negative, but because the candidates themselves were weak. Dukakis didn't counter-attack, and by letting the ad continue to play with no response, the message of the ad became a reality. The same is true for John Kerry. By not having a swift and strong response, the message of the swift boat ads became a reality for voters. Look at John McCain this year. In the New York Times "story" earlier this year, he was the victim of what can only be described as an attack. But the message didnt stick. The McCain camp had a strong response and they were able to change the focus of the story from a potentially damning story for his campaign to a focus on shoddy reporting by the New York Times. By making the story about the opposition when an attack is made, you can come out looking much better. But like in the case of Kerry and Dukakis, by letting the story define you, you're dead in the water before you even begin. But, even if I grant you all of that, that doesn't say anything about the "republican attack machine". Attack ads work. Thats why theyre run. But there's no reason Republicans are any different than Democrats except that Keith Olbermann likes to bitch about it. Democrats run just as many attack ads as the Republicans, the only difference has been in recent history Democrats have trotted out weaker candidates than Republicans in the general election.
×
×
  • Create New...