That isn't exactly true. But Obama would like you to believe it.
I don't know if you know this, but the president doesn't actually get to vote in the Senate. So it is impossible to know his stance on every single bill that comes to a vote on the Senate floor.
Where that 90 percent number comes from is an analysis (completely unbiased, I'm sure) of votes in which the analyzers were fairly certain they knew what Bush's stance might be on a given bill. That encompasses 22 percent of the Senate votes since Bush took office. So, to be completely fair, McCain agreed with Bush 90 percent of 22 percent of the time.
A better gauge of McCain's independent-ness might be this: Over that span, he voted with the Republicans only 81 percent of the time. That measures ALL votes.
The situations are different in my book for several reasons ... the first being this ad DOESN'T EVEN USE MCCAIN'S RECORD ... it uses Rush Limbaugh's, then tries to make the flimsy connection between the two, irrespective of the fact that Rush OPPOSED McCain on this issue.
But, regardless of that ...
Here's the point I'm trying to make in this thread, starting with its very title:
If Obama wants to play in the mud just because he believes McCain went there first, fine. But I expect to hear no more complaints about McCain's "Rovian" tactics for the rest of the campaign. No more boo-hooing about "they're going to try to scare you, because I don't look like the presidents on the dollar bills" and all this other condescending semi-racist nonsense.
You can't "fight fire with fire" and still claim moral superiority. You can't get down and dirty in the mud, and still claim to be walking the high road. You just can't.
i can assure you that you will be hearing no such things from me. i've been calling for obama to take some shots back for a while now. it was guaranteed to get ugly and i'd rather have him win than stick to some inane high road his opponent has clearly decided not to take. i watched john kerry go down in flames because he wouldn't hit back and tried to play nice, and i don't want to see it happen again.
it's just amusing as hell to see how whiny you repubs get when your own slimy tactics are turned on you. suddenly it's outrageous, whereas before it was maybe just slightly distasteful. :rolleyes:
Well, this just goes both ways. My point to you is that I don't see much room for McCain's campaign or supporters to have any room to criticize Obama for practicing such tactics, considering how McCain fired these shots last week. There's nothing difference in the lies inherent in the ads, and the sleaziness of the ads, so I consider it somewhat hypocritical that you or any other McCain supporter would cry foul after the tactics McCain has practiced during this campaign. So it's probably best to drop the matter entirely.
I disagree with you, of course, but continuing to debate the point really would be an exercise in futility.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
i can assure you that you will be hearing no such things from me. i've been calling for obama to take some shots back for a while now. it was guaranteed to get ugly and i'd rather have him win than stick to some inane high road his opponent has clearly decided not to take. i watched john kerry go down in flames because he wouldn't hit back and tried to play nice, and i don't want to see it happen again.
Hey, that's a perfectly legitimate stance to take. I'm talking more about Obama himself, standing on the stump and boo-hooing every slight as "politics as usual" -- and then turning around and playing politics as usual.
If you're gonna be a liar, be a liar. But don't be a hypocrite, too.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
Hey, that's a perfectly legitimate stance to take. I'm talking more about Obama himself, standing on the stump and boo-hooing every slight as "politics as usual" -- and then turning around and playing politics as usual.
If you're gonna be a liar, be a liar. But don't be a hypocrite, too.
i don't see it that way. you've got to get in the game to have any hope of changing it. he can't have much influence on the usual politics if he's not in office. assuming he gets elected, we'll see what he does.
i don't see it that way. you've got to get in the game to have any hope of changing it. he can't have much influence on the usual politics if he's not in office. assuming he gets elected, we'll see what he does.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss ... except this one's a black guy!
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
If everyone is disgusted by the Election process and the dispicable levels all these people have stooped to, then, there is a solution.
Everyone, all of us, all of us American citizens........ drop our partisan loyalties.
We band together. Unite. And challenge the laws of the land. Time to force congress to make some drastic and serious changes in the election laws and process.
It's our country!! We can force change!! Stop permitting these jerk-offs in their dividing of us as Americans. Unite!!
Demand change!
This is what the Law should be.......
Any politician who makes a statement or comment whether through TV ads, Radio ads, Billboards (any kind of advertisement) or during interviews or debates, that embelishes, misquotes, exaggerates, spins or twists the truth and can't be proven or supported with complete facts; will be automatically disqualified from running for office or position. And will never, ever be eligible again, to run for any public office or position.
You want to see them stick to the important issues and focus on actually accomplishing something? Watch how they work under that kind of rule!!!!
That isn't exactly true. But Obama would like you to believe it.
I don't know if you know this, but the president doesn't actually get to vote in the Senate. So it is impossible to know his stance on every single bill that comes to a vote on the Senate floor.
Where that 90 percent number comes from is an analysis (completely unbiased, I'm sure) of votes in which the analyzers were fairly certain they knew what Bush's stance might be on a given bill. That encompasses 22 percent of the Senate votes since Bush took office. So, to be completely fair, McCain agreed with Bush 90 percent of 22 percent of the time.
A better gauge of McCain's independent-ness might be this: Over that span, he voted with the Republicans only 81 percent of the time. That measures ALL votes.
FWIW, Obama and Biden voted their party lines well over 90 percent of the time.
You know, if you care about such a thing ... but the 90 percent number Obama has been throwing around as fact is grossly misleading. Which, of course, is the point.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss ... except this one's a black guy!
things are bad enough that i'm happy to toss my vote to an unknown. best case scenario is he's as classy as he says and he straightens things out a bit. worst case is he turns out to be as impotent as carter and we just plod along for 4 years or so. both alternatives are better than voting for the guy who is certain to continue making things worse.
The situations are different in my book for several reasons ... the first being this ad DOESN'T EVEN USE MCCAIN'S RECORD
Sleightofjeff, it seems that one of the things that separates this ad from the Obama 'sex ed', according to you, is that there is a shred of truth in that advertisement whereas this Obama ad willfully distorts McCain's positions without using any facts or positions of McCain to back up the accusations. Fair enough.
I've noticed this morning that John McCain has put out a bunch of different advertisements this week, all cautioning Americans not to vote for Obama because he will raise the income taxes of the middle class. Now this is a direct lie; Obama's plan says the exact opposite. So McCain therefore, is distorting Obama's plan, saying it says the opposite of what it really says.
This is just as odious as Obama's ad, correct? Going by your logic?
Sleightofjeff, it seems that one of the things that separates this ad from the Obama 'sex ed', according to you, is that there is a shred of truth in that advertisement whereas this Obama ad willfully distorts McCain's positions without using any facts or positions of McCain to back up the accusations. Fair enough.
I've noticed this morning that John McCain has put out a bunch of different advertisements this week, all cautioning Americans not to vote for Obama because he will raise the income taxes of the middle class. Now this is a direct lie; Obama's plan says the exact opposite. So McCain therefore, is distorting Obama's plan, saying it says the opposite of what it really says.
This is just as odious as Obama's ad, correct? Going by your logic?
i'm looking forward to the wiggling excuses a-comin!
I've noticed this morning that John McCain has put out a bunch of different advertisements this week, all cautioning Americans not to vote for Obama because he will raise the income taxes of the middle class. Now this is a direct lie; Obama's plan says the exact opposite. So McCain therefore, is distorting Obama's plan, saying it says the opposite of what it really says.
I would have to see the ads in question before commenting. I think it's fair to say, "Obama says he won't raise taxes on the middle class, but his record certainly suggests otherwise." If an ad makes that point, then I've got no problem with it.
If it flat-out says, "Obama's tax plan, as published on his web site, includes tax hikes for the middle class." Then, yeah, that's a lie.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
I would have to see the ads in question before commenting. I think it's fair to say, "Obama says he won't raise taxes on the middle class, but his record certainly suggests otherwise." If an ad makes that point, then I've got no problem with it.
If it flat-out says, "Obama's tax plan, as published on his web site, includes tax hikes for the middle class." Then, yeah, that's a lie.
I'm usually respect your points even if I disagree with you but this is a stretch to me. McCain has really gone negative the last 2 weeks or so. From the Sex ed Add to the lipstick on a pig. And I saw the add in question and it didn't say based on his record it just says flatly he will raise taxes.
If Obama wants to play the game, which i think he should in order to win, then you are right he shouldn't complain anymore. But McCain really did start this right about the time he was down by 6 % and in the electoral college polls.
10/31/2000 (****)
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
I'm usually respect your points even if I disagree with you but this is a stretch to me. McCain has really gone negative the last 2 weeks or so. From the Sex ed Add to the lipstick on a pig. And I saw the add in question and it didn't say based on his record it just says flatly he will raise taxes.
If Obama wants to play the game, which i think he should in order to win, then you are right he shouldn't complain anymore. But McCain really did start this right about the time he was down by 6 % and in the electoral college polls.
I'm not going to argue McCain hasn't "gone negative." I might even be willing to agree with your assertion that "he started it."
But at least one study would disagree with the prevailing opinion that McCain has been more negative than Obama of late:
"Seventy-seven percent of the Illinois Democrat's commercials were negative during the week after the Republican National Convention, compared with 56 percent of the spots run by McCain."
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
"Seventy-seven percent of the Illinois Democrat's commercials were negative during the week after the Republican National Convention, compared with 56 percent of the spots run by McCain."
What's really upsetting is I expected a fair campaign to be run by both men based on there past actions.
But once you get so close to the finish line I guess its time to go for the win.
I hope the debates are more civil and stick to the issues but I have my doubts about that at this point.
10/31/2000 (****)
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
i'm looking forward to the wiggling excuses a-comin!
To be fair, I think for the most part of sleightofjeff backs up what he's saying (I disagree that he is in this instance), and he doesn't agree with me on anything. I'd rather be talking to someone who disagrees with me on nothing.
To be fair, I think for the most part of sleightofjeff backs up what he's saying (I disagree that he is in this instance), and he doesn't agree with me on anything. I'd rather be talking to someone who disagrees with me on nothing.
Thanks ... I think
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
I would have to see the ads in question before commenting. I think it's fair to say, "Obama says he won't raise taxes on the middle class, but his record certainly suggests otherwise." If an ad makes that point, then I've got no problem with it.
If it flat-out says, "Obama's tax plan, as published on his web site, includes tax hikes for the middle class." Then, yeah, that's a lie.
Well, here it is; one of about five I believe where McCain accuses Obama of having plans that will increase income taxes for Americans...
I think it is pretty straightforward; both Obama and McCain pledged to run a clean campaign without petty distortions and outright lies. I think McCain started it first, but that doesn't matter to me too much, because no matter what I think it was heading there anyway. The thing is that Obama's ads have primarily been focused on the big issues of the day (Iraq and especially the economy), for a simple reason; as the polls show it, the majority of Americans right now agree with his approach. This leads McCain to want to take the focus off those issues, since he's not necessarily in the mainstream of these at the current moment, and he engages in character attacks that will distract the news cycle. That I think, for the most part, other than this most recent ad from Obama has been the differentiation.
But I fail to see how McCain's ads are more dignified, or even more honest.
How in the fuck McCain could ever be construed as anti-immigration is beyond me. One of the reasons conservatives balked at him pre-Palin was because they are scared to death he's going to push through an amnesty bill.
At the very least, Obama is now officially even with McCain over the kindergarted sex-ed ad, which at least had a grain of truth to it.
This is just a flat-out malicious fabrication from the guy who was supposed to magically change the tone in Washington .... sheesh.
Such drama!
Obama will never come close to the underhanded lies put out by the Republican party, McCain and Palin. No one, is against immigration, they against illegal immigration and what can be done to resolve the status of illegals who have been in this country for years. McCain has flip flopped on his joint bill with Kennedy regarding amnesty.
SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
hey slight .... what's your opinion on push-polling?
From the NY Times ....
A Caucus reader in Florida tells us that she too was called by a research firm that has been telephoning other Jewish voters and delivering negative information about Senator Barack Obama.
After readers reported to various Web sites — including Politico , The New Republic, and Talking Points Memo — that they had received offensive calls, Politico reported that the poll was sponsored by the Republican Jewish Coalition, which is working on behalf of Senator John McCain.
That isn't exactly true. But Obama would like you to believe it.
I don't know if you know this, but the president doesn't actually get to vote in the Senate. So it is impossible to know his stance on every single bill that comes to a vote on the Senate floor.
Where that 90 percent number comes from is an analysis (completely unbiased, I'm sure) of votes in which the analyzers were fairly certain they knew what Bush's stance might be on a given bill. That encompasses 22 percent of the Senate votes since Bush took office. So, to be completely fair, McCain agreed with Bush 90 percent of 22 percent of the time.
A better gauge of McCain's independent-ness might be this: Over that span, he voted with the Republicans only 81 percent of the time. That measures ALL votes.
FWIW, Obama and Biden voted their party lines well over 90 percent of the time.
You know, if you care about such a thing ... but the 90 percent number Obama has been throwing around as fact is grossly misleading. Which, of course, is the point.
I would like to hear all of what was said instead of just clips. Showing a democrat commercial is not proving anything
96 Randall's Island II
98 CAA
00 Virginia Beach;Camden I; Jones Beach III
05 Borgata Night I; Wachovia Center
06 Letterman Show; Webcast (guy in blue shirt), Camden I; DC
08 Camden I; Camden II; DC
09 Phillie III
10 MSG II
13 Wrigley Field
16 Phillie II
Comments
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AY-iTyN7c0A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uThoBMfcFRc
McCain was the one that said it first.
Madison Square Garden 6/25/08
i can assure you that you will be hearing no such things from me. i've been calling for obama to take some shots back for a while now. it was guaranteed to get ugly and i'd rather have him win than stick to some inane high road his opponent has clearly decided not to take. i watched john kerry go down in flames because he wouldn't hit back and tried to play nice, and i don't want to see it happen again.
it's just amusing as hell to see how whiny you repubs get when your own slimy tactics are turned on you. suddenly it's outrageous, whereas before it was maybe just slightly distasteful. :rolleyes:
I disagree with you, of course, but continuing to debate the point really would be an exercise in futility.
for the least they could possibly do
Hey, that's a perfectly legitimate stance to take. I'm talking more about Obama himself, standing on the stump and boo-hooing every slight as "politics as usual" -- and then turning around and playing politics as usual.
If you're gonna be a liar, be a liar. But don't be a hypocrite, too.
for the least they could possibly do
i don't see it that way. you've got to get in the game to have any hope of changing it. he can't have much influence on the usual politics if he's not in office. assuming he gets elected, we'll see what he does.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss ... except this one's a black guy!
for the least they could possibly do
Same tune can be sung about Mccain too (minus the black guy part).
"I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass." --- Pedro Martinez
Everyone, all of us, all of us American citizens........ drop our partisan loyalties.
We band together. Unite. And challenge the laws of the land. Time to force congress to make some drastic and serious changes in the election laws and process.
It's our country!! We can force change!! Stop permitting these jerk-offs in their dividing of us as Americans. Unite!!
Demand change!
This is what the Law should be.......
Any politician who makes a statement or comment whether through TV ads, Radio ads, Billboards (any kind of advertisement) or during interviews or debates, that embelishes, misquotes, exaggerates, spins or twists the truth and can't be proven or supported with complete facts; will be automatically disqualified from running for office or position. And will never, ever be eligible again, to run for any public office or position.
You want to see them stick to the important issues and focus on actually accomplishing something? Watch how they work under that kind of rule!!!!
Force Change!!!
thank you. i mean, karl rove (karl rove!!!) has already admitted that some of mccain's ads would not pass the 100% truth test.
Don't blame Obama for what McCain said.
things are bad enough that i'm happy to toss my vote to an unknown. best case scenario is he's as classy as he says and he straightens things out a bit. worst case is he turns out to be as impotent as carter and we just plod along for 4 years or so. both alternatives are better than voting for the guy who is certain to continue making things worse.
Sleightofjeff, it seems that one of the things that separates this ad from the Obama 'sex ed', according to you, is that there is a shred of truth in that advertisement whereas this Obama ad willfully distorts McCain's positions without using any facts or positions of McCain to back up the accusations. Fair enough.
I've noticed this morning that John McCain has put out a bunch of different advertisements this week, all cautioning Americans not to vote for Obama because he will raise the income taxes of the middle class. Now this is a direct lie; Obama's plan says the exact opposite. So McCain therefore, is distorting Obama's plan, saying it says the opposite of what it really says.
This is just as odious as Obama's ad, correct? Going by your logic?
i'm looking forward to the wiggling excuses a-comin!
Meet the really, really, really old boss ...
for the least they could possibly do
I would have to see the ads in question before commenting. I think it's fair to say, "Obama says he won't raise taxes on the middle class, but his record certainly suggests otherwise." If an ad makes that point, then I've got no problem with it.
If it flat-out says, "Obama's tax plan, as published on his web site, includes tax hikes for the middle class." Then, yeah, that's a lie.
for the least they could possibly do
I'm usually respect your points even if I disagree with you but this is a stretch to me. McCain has really gone negative the last 2 weeks or so. From the Sex ed Add to the lipstick on a pig. And I saw the add in question and it didn't say based on his record it just says flatly he will raise taxes.
If Obama wants to play the game, which i think he should in order to win, then you are right he shouldn't complain anymore. But McCain really did start this right about the time he was down by 6 % and in the electoral college polls.
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
I'm not going to argue McCain hasn't "gone negative." I might even be willing to agree with your assertion that "he started it."
But at least one study would disagree with the prevailing opinion that McCain has been more negative than Obama of late:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/17/AR2008091703581.html
"Seventy-seven percent of the Illinois Democrat's commercials were negative during the week after the Republican National Convention, compared with 56 percent of the spots run by McCain."
for the least they could possibly do
What's really upsetting is I expected a fair campaign to be run by both men based on there past actions.
But once you get so close to the finish line I guess its time to go for the win.
I hope the debates are more civil and stick to the issues but I have my doubts about that at this point.
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
To be fair, I think for the most part of sleightofjeff backs up what he's saying (I disagree that he is in this instance), and he doesn't agree with me on anything. I'd rather be talking to someone who disagrees with me on nothing.
Thanks ... I think
for the least they could possibly do
Well, here it is; one of about five I believe where McCain accuses Obama of having plans that will increase income taxes for Americans...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFHdXEmpI7Q
I think it is pretty straightforward; both Obama and McCain pledged to run a clean campaign without petty distortions and outright lies. I think McCain started it first, but that doesn't matter to me too much, because no matter what I think it was heading there anyway. The thing is that Obama's ads have primarily been focused on the big issues of the day (Iraq and especially the economy), for a simple reason; as the polls show it, the majority of Americans right now agree with his approach. This leads McCain to want to take the focus off those issues, since he's not necessarily in the mainstream of these at the current moment, and he engages in character attacks that will distract the news cycle. That I think, for the most part, other than this most recent ad from Obama has been the differentiation.
But I fail to see how McCain's ads are more dignified, or even more honest.
Such drama!
Obama will never come close to the underhanded lies put out by the Republican party, McCain and Palin. No one, is against immigration, they against illegal immigration and what can be done to resolve the status of illegals who have been in this country for years. McCain has flip flopped on his joint bill with Kennedy regarding amnesty.
Well, nobody ever accused a political campaign of being dignified ... I'll give you that.
for the least they could possibly do
It said "Life is nothing but a dream."
I've spent so many years in question
To find I'd known this all along.
From the NY Times ....
A Caucus reader in Florida tells us that she too was called by a research firm that has been telephoning other Jewish voters and delivering negative information about Senator Barack Obama.
After readers reported to various Web sites — including Politico , The New Republic, and Talking Points Memo — that they had received offensive calls, Politico reported that the poll was sponsored by the Republican Jewish Coalition, which is working on behalf of Senator John McCain.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/17/troubling-phone-polls/
more from the AP and Politico ...
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jYNQyAwFMCq4ykSL3w_lsV950-vwD937GIN00
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13516.html
"I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass." --- Pedro Martinez
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4DrL8-UA4U
You were saying?
I would like to hear all of what was said instead of just clips. Showing a democrat commercial is not proving anything
98 CAA
00 Virginia Beach;Camden I; Jones Beach III
05 Borgata Night I; Wachovia Center
06 Letterman Show; Webcast (guy in blue shirt), Camden I; DC
08 Camden I; Camden II; DC
09 Phillie III
10 MSG II
13 Wrigley Field
16 Phillie II
It proves it comes directly from McSame's mouth. Not some left wing political strategist.
How exactly could those quotes be 'spun' may I ask?