Fred

cincybearcat

Solat13 wrote:

I thought maybe Thompson could have made a point more about McCain's clashes with W over the years because of how the Left is trying to portray him as a rank and file Republican. But I guess in time when the base is finally unified, the call was made from above not to go that route.

Yep, but Lieberman hi that subject, not as effective as necessary though, but it was the safe way to go about it.

flywallyfly

Strangest Tribe wrote:

Hollywood needs better white actors also......


also, did he fart about 5 minutes into this speech???

He coughed and it sounded like he farted.... did anyone else notice this???

He must have had too many bran muffins for dinner. Good thing those Depends are very absorbent. His young wife must hate having to change their baby's diapers and Fred's on a constant basis.

cincybearcat

inmytree wrote:

I fell asleep a few minutes into the speech....;)

I can only imagine how many seconds you lasted into Michelle Obama or Hillary Clinton's speeches then.

Shouldn't speeches with actually content be better than fluff pieces?

cincybearcat

John Budge wrote:

Isn't Palin making history as the first woman on a GOP ticket? :rolleyes:


Yes, and Palin has loads of experience.

Soooo, there aren't any Republicans in Congress? Maybe they should introduce more laws to save women from being removed from life support? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Like they said last night, I don;t think Obama fans want to start quesitoning people's experience.

flywallyfly

cincybearcat wrote:

Like they said last night, I don;t think Obama fans want to start quesitoning people's experience.

Why not? Has McCain's experiences led him to make sound judgements? Maverick my ass. The man cant shit without asking advice from his aides.

cincybearcat

flywallyfly wrote:

Why not? Has McCain's experiences led him to make sound judgements? Maverick my ass. The man cant shit without asking advice from his aides.

Because Obama has very little experience himself.

I personally like the lack of this "experience"...hence I don;t mind Obama NOR Palin. BUt I do give Palin some credit for being a Governer...of any state for any time period. I've always preferred governer candidates to Senators.

digster

cincybearcat wrote:

Like they said last night, I don;t think Obama fans want to start quesitoning people's experience.

I don't understand this reasoning at all from Republican circles; "hey, our candidate may be shitty, but at least she's not as shitty as yours!" I mean, honestly, what kind of defense is that?

And if they want to bring up experience, let em. Obama is not running on an extensive Washington record; McCain is. Obama is not the one saying that McCain is unfit to lead due to a lack of experience; McCain is. Obama is not the one that, despite a focus on the necessity of extensive experience, picked someone with little government experience and absolutely no foreign policy experience; McCain is. Obama is not the one that deflated his experience argument through his VP choice, thus far the only successful argument against his opponent. McCain is.

I've been asking those questions for days on this board, and no McCain supporters can seem to answer them. When I question Palin's lack of experience, don't throw Obama back as an answer. What does that say about McCain's message of the necessity of experience when he picks a VP candidate with next to none?

cincybearcat

digster wrote:

I don't understand this reasoning at all from Republican circles; "hey, our candidate may be shitty, but at least she's not as shitty as yours!" I mean, honestly, what kind of defense is that?

And if they want to bring up experience, let em. Obama is not running on an extensive Washington record; McCain is. Obama is not the one saying that McCain is unfit to lead due to a lack of experience; McCain is. Obama is not the one that, despite a focus on the necessity of extensive experience, picked someone with little government experience and absolutely no foreign policy experience; McCain is. Obama is not the one that deflated his experience argument through his VP choice, thus far the only successful argument against his opponent. McCain is.

I've been asking those questions for days on this board, and no McCain supporters can seem to answer them. When I question Palin's lack of experience, don't throw Obama back as an answer. What does that say about McCain's message of the necessity of experience when he picks a VP candidate with next to none?

I didn't say that at all, I don't think either is "shity".

We need to try and read posts. Just because someone says something good about Fred's speech, doesn't mean they all of a sudden agree 100% with the republican party...same for a speech by a Dem.

I think Palin does have a lack of WASHINGTION experience (as does Obama) and I LIKE that about BOTH of them. I think Palin's 18-20 months of being a governer makes her experience BETTER than Obama's senate experience. Governer's can't vote present...and governer's don't have 40+ other senators to sit along side of 95% of the time. They are front and center making the final call. I respect that.

digster

cincybearcat wrote:

I didn't say that at all, I don't think either is "shity".

We need to try and read posts. Just because someone says something good about Fred's speech, doesn't mean they all of a sudden agree 100% with the republican party...same for a speech by a Dem.

I think Palin does have a lack of WASHINGTION experience (as does Obama) and I LIKE that about BOTH of them. I think Palin's 18-20 months of being a governer makes her experience BETTER than Obama's senate experience. Governer's can't vote present...and governer's don't have 40+ other senators to sit along side of 95% of the time. They are front and center making the final call. I respect that.

I agree entirely with your second point...the first post in this thread is me complimenting Thompson on his speech. I didn't agree with most of what he said, but it was still a solid speech. And I said 'Republican circles' have been using that argument; I didn't mean to limit it to what you individually said. Your post inspired my thought about that, and it is true that I've been hearing that from alot of Republicans, particularly on television (maybe not with the wording I used).

My final question still stands, and I still want a McCain supporter to answer it for me, because out of all the pregnancy, troopergate crap that's flying around that is really not pertinent, this is a criticism that has merit; McCain has called Obama unfit to lead because he has little experience on how to "get things done" in Washington, because of a lack of Washington experience. And now he has chosen as his second-in-command, someone's who's primary job it is to be president at a moment's notice, someone with absolutely no experience on how to get things done in Washington. Great governor or not, she has absolutely no Washington experience. I'm not talking about Palin; what does that say about McCain and his message? If he doesn't think Obama has enough Washington experience to lead, how could he think someone with no Washington experience can? Isn't that pretty shitty judgment?

Obama had good judgment with his VP pick due to two reasons:
1. He picked someone that everyone agrees COULD be president, if need be.
2. He picked someone that addresses his weaknesses without (irrevocably) diluting his strengths.

With his VP pick, McCain,

1. Picked someone that may not be able to be President.
2. Picked someone that may help his strength as a 'maverick' but jettisons his most powerful argument against Obama.

I just want someone to address this issue without using Obama's own lack of experience as an answer, cause that's not an answer. It's sidestepping the question. Since I know you're a McCain supporter, I figured I'd address it to you.

jimed14

the best part of Fred's speech was when he gave props to McCain for having dated a stripper in Florida before he left for the military ....

....... and the crowd goes silent ....

jimed14

8:00 mark ...

wish they gave a shot of Cindy McCain after THAT comment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0sYZZYw7-U

cincybearcat

digster wrote:

I just want someone to address this issue without using Obama's own lack of experience as an answer, cause that's not an answer. It's sidestepping the question. Since I know you're a McCain supporter, I figured I'd address it to you.

I'm not necessarily a McCain supporter...I caucased for Obama in Iowa during the primaries...I'm undecided.

I'm not the one to aswer you question though as I never bought in to that message.

I will try to answer your question a way that may make some sense...

The Dem presidential ticket is Obama #1....Biden #2.
The Repub. presidential ticket is McCain #1....Palin #2.

So, it's not terrible judgment necessarily to attack your opponent for his lack of experience and then select a running mate with little experience. Big difference between Pres. & VP. I do understand people questioning this though.

Obama's #2 pick can certainly be questioned. #1, I'm not sure everyone agrees Biden could be president, that is certainly debatable. #2, it certainly goes at fixing some of Obama's perceived weaknesses...that the Rep party call out, but it I think it undermines his strenght of "Change" since Biden's been in Washington since 1972. What does it say about Obama, that when push came to shove he caved to Rep. concerns and potential poll concerns to select a Washington Insider instead of a change agent?

Personally, I am very disappointed in Obama's choice and excited abotu McCain's choice. I was very close to voting for Obama simply because I wanted a new face that might actually change washington, despite the fact that I disagree with him on MANY issues...now I'm taking a very hard look at the McCain/Palin ticket to see what they have to offer.

Neither is perfect for sure, just like when you're apply for a job...you look to be able to meet 75% of the requirements they mention in the add...same thing here for me.

digster

cincybearcat wrote:

The Dem presidential ticket is Obama #1....Biden #2.
The Repub. presidential ticket is McCain #1....Palin #2.

So, it's not terrible judgment necessarily to attack your opponent for his lack of experience and then select a running mate with little experience. Big difference between Pres. & VP. I do understand people questioning this though.

Obama's #2 pick can certainly be questioned. #1, I'm not sure everyone agrees Biden could be president, that is certainly debatable. #2, it certainly goes at fixing some of Obama's perceived weaknesses...that the Rep party call out, but it I think it undermines his strenght of "Change" since Biden's been in Washington since 1972. What does it say about Obama, that when push came to shove he caved to Rep. concerns and potential poll concerns to select a Washington Insider instead of a change agent?

Personally, I am very disappointed in Obama's choice and excited abotu McCain's choice. I was very close to voting for Obama simply because I wanted a new face that might actually change washington, despite the fact that I disagree with him on MANY issues...now I'm taking a very hard look at the McCain/Palin ticket to see what they have to offer.

Neither is perfect for sure, just like when you're apply for a job...you look to be able to meet 75% of the requirements they mention in the add...same thing here for me.

I understand the number one and number two argument, but isn't the one qualification that is absolutely necessary to a VP candidate that he or she be ready to assume the presidency at a moment's notice? Does this mean that I say Palin has to be ready on day one because McCain will drop dead at inauguration? No, of course not, but remember William Henry Harrison; he was president for only thirty days before his death. Reagan was nearly assassinated two months after taking office. Shit happens in this job. It's a fair criticism for McCain, just as it's a fair criticism to be lobbied at Obama.

Also, another fact to point out is that Obama was voted the Democratic nominee by the voters. Whether conservatives and moderates agree with them or not, the Democratic Party endorsed Obama as being ready to assume the role of the Presidency. No one voted for Palin; this was McCain's choice and judgment and his alone. That's another reason that the "Palin is only number 2 argument" is flawed. I'm not talking about Palin, I'm talking about McCain. What does it say about his judgment and how seriously he takes these decisions when his VP choice (i.e. an endorsement of this person to be President) violates his own stated qualifications for the Presidency? Complete contradiction.

I moreover don't understand your argument about Biden. #1 He has as much Washington experience as McCain, and I don't see anyone saying McCain is unfit to be President. Hell, I'm not voting for McCain and I don't think he is not capable, I think he's just wrong on most of the issues. I don't see how anyone could say McCain is prepared and not Biden. #2 It addresses Obama's weaknesses with moderates who like Obama's message, but are still wary of promoting him to the top office because of a perceived lack of experience. The parties are pretty polarized, and I don't believe Obama is expecting to get many far right votes. Moreover, I can understand the feeling that Biden undermines Obama's message. I don't think it does so drastically, but I can understand that argument. Why I cannot understand is someone who says that Obama's campaign is weakened but that McCain's campaign is strengthened, when each candidate chose someone who conflicted with their central message. And what does it say to you then, that McCain saw that the experience charge against Obama was not going to win him the election and sold out to the social conservative wing of his party (to which McCain has always been estranged), even though it's become pretty clear that Lieberman was his number one choice? That would have been a maverick move; Palin is just playing to the base. And the base, strong as it may have been in 2004, is not going to win McCain this election.

cincybearcat

digster wrote:

I moreover don't understand your argument about Biden. #1 He has as much Washington experience as McCain, and I don't see anyone saying McCain is unfit to be President. Hell, I'm not voting for McCain and I don't think he is not capable, I think he's just wrong on most of the issues. I don't see how anyone could say McCain is prepared and not Biden. #2 It addresses Obama's weaknesses with moderates who like Obama's message, but are still wary of promoting him to the top office because of a perceived lack of experience. The parties are pretty polarized, and I don't believe Obama is expecting to get many far right votes. Moreover, I can understand the feeling that Biden undermines Obama's message. I don't think it does so drastically, but I can understand that argument. Why I cannot understand is someone who says that Obama's campaign is weakened but that McCain's campaign is strengthened, when each candidate chose someone who conflicted with their central message. And what does it say to you then, that McCain saw that the experience charge against Obama was not going to win him the election and sold out to the social conservative wing of his party (to which McCain has always been estranged), even though it's become pretty clear that Lieberman was his number one choice? That would have been a maverick move; Palin is just playing to the base. And the base, strong as it may have been in 2004, is not going to win McCain this election.

I just said that Biden being president is debatable.

Obama's campaign was weakened WITH ME...McCain's campaign was strenghtened with ME...why?

1) I tend to agree with Republicans on more issues then Democrats...deciding on each issues weight will ultimately decide who I vote for.

2) I was intrigued by Obama's lack of experience to some degree...I'm sick of the same people...now he made that argument a little weaker with Biden, while McCain helped his case with Palin.

I've heard it said many times by the same talking heads on TV, but never from McCain, etc...where are they getting that Lieberman was his 1st choice? I'm not saying it's not true, just wondering....and doubting a little.

So, I'm not sure the implications on the national level, but the VP choices have certainly moved me from close to voting for Obama to a statistical deadheat.

digster

cincybearcat wrote:

I just said that Biden being president is debatable.

Obama's campaign was weakened WITH ME...McCain's campaign was strenghtened with ME...why?

1) I tend to agree with Republicans on more issues then Democrats...deciding on each issues weight will ultimately decide who I vote for.

2) I was intrigued by Obama's lack of experience to some degree...I'm sick of the same people...now he made that argument a little weaker with Biden, while McCain helped his case with Palin.

I've heard it said many times by the same talking heads on TV, but never from McCain, etc...where are they getting that Lieberman was his 1st choice? I'm not saying it's not true, just wondering....and doubting a little.

So, I'm not sure the implications on the national level, but the VP choices have certainly moved me from close to voting for Obama to a statistical deadheat.

Well, I can't say anything about personal politics. Everyone's own judgment is their own. But I think I have a pretty fair argument that I haven't really heard answered by someone who does think that Palin was a good choice and that Obama is unfit to lead. I'm looking to find a McCain supporter who can address that issue; haven't seen one yet.

NMyTree

cincybearcat wrote:

Shouldn't speeches with actually content be better than fluff pieces?

I agree. And when Obama, Bush, Thompson or anyone has some actual content; please do let me know.

That speech was nothing more than some asshole playing a role and delivering a well-rehearsed speech with the exact inflection and drama that the script called for. He should have been wearing a cheerleaders outfit and waving pom-poms.

What a crock of shit coming out of his mouth.

After the last eight years of Bush/Cheney and their Right Wing corporate interests; that speech was about as offensive as it gets.

slightofjeff

digster wrote:

I'm looking to find a McCain supporter who can address that issue; haven't seen one yet.

I've answered this question for you before, just not to your satisfaction, I guess.

You seem to want to draw no distinction between the No. 1 and No. 2 on the ticket, but there is one. If we're going to have someone "inexperienced," I'd much rather it be the No. 2 on the ticket than the guy, you know, I'm actually voting for.

Also, who says Palin is unqualified? She has actual, tangible accomplishments she can point to in her time as governor of our largest state. There is actual, tangible evidence of her ability to lead. This is the part where I would say, "as opposed to the guy on the top of the Democratic ticket," but I don't have to.

When Obama cites "running my campaign" as the best example of his ability to lead ... it scares the shit out of me that he might actually become president.

slightofjeff

NMyTree wrote:

I agree. And when Obama, Bush, Thompson or anyone has some actual content; please do let me know.

That speech was nothing more than some asshole playing a role and delivering a well-rehearsed speech with the exact inflection and drama that the script called for. He should have been wearing a cheerleaders outfit and waving pom-poms.

What a crock of shit coming out of his mouth.

After the last eight years of Bush/Cheney and their Right Wing corporate interests; that speech was about as offensive as it gets.

Why was it offensive?

His best line was about taxes ... and he's absolutely right. Obama doesn't want to tax you ... just your employer and everything you buy.

mammasan

slightofjeff wrote:

Why was it offensive?

His best line was about taxes ... and he's absolutely right. Obama doesn't want to tax you ... just your employer and everything you buy.

that may be true but did he mention that McCain doesn't want to tax you either. He just wants to spend more and cause that money you get to keep depreciate in value.

slightofjeff

mammasan wrote:

that may be true but did he mention that McCain doesn't want to tax you either. He just wants to spend more and cause that money you get to keep depreciate in value.

Um, have you checked out Obama's "universal everything" policy? I swear to God, we're one step away from Obama offering all of us free cable, or a free Subway sandwich every other Tuesday.

If I had to pick the candidate I think "wants to spend more," McCain would come in second.