I would like to hear all of what was said instead of just
TIM RUSSERT: The fact is you are different than George Bush.
SEN. McCAIN: No. No. I--the fact is that I'm different but the fact is that I have agreed with President Bush far more than I have disagreed. And on the transcendent issues, the most important issues of our day, I've been totally in agreement and support of President Bush. So have we had some disagreements on some issues, the bulk--particularly domestic issues? Yes. But I will argue my conservative record voting with anyone's, and I will also submit that my support for President Bush has been active and very impassioned on issues that are important to the American people. And I'm particularly talking about the war on terror, the war in Iraq, national security, national defense, support of men and women in the military, fiscal discipline, a number of other issues. So I strongly disagree with any assertion that I've been more at odds with the president of the United States than I have been in agreement with him.
Note: He's 'impassioned' for his support for Bush's fiscal discipline? Does that mean he'll leave office with a budget deficit over $1 trillion?
He may say that he's slightly out of step with Bush on domestic issues, but a lot of those have been issues that he switched positions on in the last couple years. He still is 100% behind the president on non-domestic issues, though.
CAVUTO: Let me ask you, Senator, all things being equal right now and given the fact that you differ with the president so strongly on this tax cut and on some of these spending issues, would you ever consider challenging him for the Republican nomination next year?
MCCAIN: No, no. But, look, the president and I agree on most issues. There was a recent study that showed that I voted with the president over 90 percent of the time, higher than a lot of my even Republican colleagues.
This is an honest difference of opinion, but it’s also what I campaigned on. I campaigned on a tax package that had to do with a balanced budget, not to do with massive deficits, and I’m sticking with the principles and the philosophy that I campaigned for president on, albeit I lost.
Great thanks. I still think Obama is night the right person to lead this country.
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
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.
How does the media let candidates tell the same lies over and over without calling them on it?
The McCain camp, McCain himself, and in ads is saying that former Frannie Mae CEO Frank Raines is an Obama advisor and is advising him on housing policy... Both Raines and Obama's camp say that isn't true, and they have never had contact, but McCain is still saying it on the stump everywhere he goes.
It's little shit like that that annoys the hell out of me with politics. Candidates and their mouthpieces report lies over and over and over again, and are give free reign to do so.
My whole life
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
How does the media let candidates tell the same lies over and over without calling them on it?
The McCain camp, McCain himself, and in ads is saying that former Frannie Mae CEO Frank Raines is an Obama advisor and is advising him on housing policy... Both Raines and Obama's camp say that isn't true, and they have never had contact, but McCain is still saying it on the stump everywhere he goes.
It's little shit like that that annoys the hell out of me with politics. Candidates and their mouthpieces report lies over and over and over again, and are give free reign to do so.
If Obama is saying they've never even had contact, then he is flat-out lying (or else it was Raines who lied to the Washington Post back in July):
From a profile of Raines in the July 16 WaPo:
(Raines) has shaved eight points off his golf handicap, taken a corner office in Steve Case's D.C. conglomeration of finance, entertainment and health-care companies and more recently, taken calls from Barack Obama's presidential campaign seeking his advice on mortgage and housing policy matters."
How does the media let candidates tell the same lies over and over without calling them on it?
The McCain camp, McCain himself, and in ads is saying that former Frannie Mae CEO Frank Raines is an Obama advisor and is advising him on housing policy... Both Raines and Obama's camp say that isn't true, and they have never had contact, but McCain is still saying it on the stump everywhere he goes.
It's little shit like that that annoys the hell out of me with politics. Candidates and their mouthpieces report lies over and over and over again, and are give free reign to do so.
Statement:
Amid "corruption at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac," Sen. Barack Obama "profited from this system of abuse and scandal. While Fannie and Freddie were working to keep Congress away from their house of cards, Senator Obama was taking their money. He got more, in fact, than any other member of Congress, except for the Democratic chairman of the committee that oversees them." —Sen. John McCain, at a campaign stop Friday, September 19, in Green Bay, Wisconsin.
The Facts
Federal law forbids candidates from receiving money directly from companies. The nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics tracks donations from employees of various companies. The center's list of contributions from Fannie and Freddie employees places Obama second. Ahead of him is Sen. Chris Dodd, Democratic chairman of the Senate Banking Committee.
The total listed for Obama is $126,349 — a tiny fraction of the approximately $390 million his campaign has raised, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The list shows McCain has received a total of $21,550 from Fannie and Freddie employees. The list includes donations of at least $200 from those who receive paychecks from Fannie and Freddie. It also includes donations from political action committees — pooled contributions from employees. Obama decided early in his presidential run not to accept PAC contributions, but the Center for Responsive Politics' list includes all contributions for members of Congress dating back to 1989 — including Obama and McCain's Senate campaigns.
The New York Times has published a separate list looking at contributions from "directors, officers, and lobbyists for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac" for the 2008 campaign cycle. That list — using figures from the Federal Election Commission — shows McCain receiving $169,000, while Obama received only $16,000.
VERDICT
Partially true, but misleading. Donations don't come from companies. A list of employee contributions puts Obama second, but a different list including lobbyists and directors shows McCain getting more.
*** edited for length - click on link for full article ***
If Obama is saying they've never even had contact, then he is flat-out lying (or else it was Raines who lied to the Washington Post back in July):
From a profile of Raines in the July 16 WaPo:
(Raines) has shaved eight points off his golf handicap, taken a corner office in Steve Case's D.C. conglomeration of finance, entertainment and health-care companies and more recently, taken calls from Barack Obama's presidential campaign seeking his advice on mortgage and housing policy matters."
Both Raines and Obama's camp are denying that. Who knows... but if it did happen, it would be nice if the Washington Post backed up their story.
Obama denies Raines ties, accuses McCain of throwing stones from his "seven glass houses"
The campaign puts out a statement from former Fannie Mae chief Franklin Raines, disowning ties to Obama, after a McCain ad attacked him for the ties.
The Washington Post reported -- with the kind of blind sourcing that suggests the source was Raines -- that Raines had "taken calls from Barack Obama's presidential campaign seeking his advice on mortgage and housing policy matters."
Raines said in the statement through the campaign, "I am not an advisor to Barack Obama, nor have I provided his campaign with advice on housing or economic matters."
Obama spokesman Bill Burton added an attack:
This is another flat-out lie from a dishonorable campaign that is increasingly incapable of telling the truth. Frank Raines has never advised Senator Obama about anything -- ever. And by the way, someone whose campaign manager and top advisor worked and lobbied for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac shouldn't be throwing stones from his seven glass houses.
My whole life
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
How would you know that it's "almost certainly true" besides the McCain campaign telling you that it's almost certainly true? This article refutes both those claims, and other than the one washingtonpost article with no source you don't seem to have any evidence to back it up.
How would you know that it's "almost certainly true" besides the McCain campaign telling you that it's almost certainly true? This article refutes both those claims, and other than the one washingtonpost article with no source you don't seem to have any evidence to back it up.
How would you know that it's "almost certainly true" besides the McCain campaign telling you that it's almost certainly true? This article refutes both those claims, and other than the one washingtonpost article with no source you don't seem to have any evidence to back it up.
It's almost certainly true because I don't think the WaPo would completely invent, out of thin air, Raines' claim that he took a call from the Obama campaign in July seeking advice on the housing crisis.
And if the WaPo did invent that out of whole cloth, I'm sure the Obama campaign would have said something at the time. Or, Raines would have refuted it. Neither did, and the story STILL hasn't been retracted by the WaPo.
Secondly, I also believe it's patently obvious that Raines isn't one of Obama's key economic advisers ... mostly, because it would be pretty obvious if he was. The key players in both campaigns are fairly well known at this point.
That's why I believe, like most of the pissing matches between the two sides in this campaign, the truth almost certainly lies somewhere in the middle.
I think I'm being fair here.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
I just heard a radio ad that Obama is running on stem cell research that is a flat out lie. The crux of the ad is that Obama says that McCain's position against stem cell research is more extreme than President Bush.
Considering that both Obama and McCain voted for the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005 that Bush vetoed how can Obama justify running this ad?
It's almost certainly true because I don't think the WaPo would completely invent, out of thin air, Raines' claim that he took a call from the Obama campaign in July seeking advice on the housing crisis.
And if the WaPo did invent that out of whole cloth, I'm sure the Obama campaign would have said something at the time. Or, Raines would have refuted it. Neither did, and the story STILL hasn't been retracted by the WaPo.
Secondly, I also believe it's patently obvious that Raines isn't one of Obama's key economic advisers ... mostly, because it would be pretty obvious if he was. The key players in both campaigns are fairly well known at this point.
That's why I believe, like most of the pissing matches between the two sides in this campaign, the truth almost certainly lies somewhere in the middle.
I think I'm being fair here.
In this case you are being fair. We can finally agree on something.
well, McCain did say he would veto the McCain/Kennedy immigration bill if he were President. talk about being for something before you're against it.....
That said, why on Earth *wouldn't* Obama start pulling the same shit?
The Republican Party has used this tactic -- with success!! -- for years and years. There was an onslaught of sleazy ads from McCain last week, and while they did take a little bit of heat for it, they ultimately got away with it. They came out with statements like "well, we're all misleading everyone...but it's up to the American people to decide what's true and what's not". McCain defended the tactic multiple times by saying that if Obama had agreed to McCain's town hall suggestion, the whole tenor of the campaign would be different; so if he'd gotten his way, he wouldn't have started hitting below the belt.
So, in this moment where lying your face off seems to be the only way to get a leg up, I guess all that's left to do is join them. America has (sadly) proven over and over again that integrity means fucking nothing.
Examples please? This ad is a blatant out and out lie. Not like you can say he is stretching the truth.
That comes from McCain agreeing with Bush 90% of the time in the last 8 years.
This is true, but Obama has voted with his party 97% of the time. This is taken from factcheck.org:
"It's true that McCain's voting support for Bush policies has averaged slightly above 89 percent since Bush took office, according to Congressional Quarterly’s vote studies. But it has ebbed and flowed. It reached a low of 77 percent in 2005. Last year it was 95 percent. By comparison, Obama's own record of supporting Bush policies has averaged slightly under 41 percent since the senator took office. However, Obama's voting record is no less partisan than McCain's. He has voted in line with his party an average of nearly 97 percent of the time. The truth is that neither candidate can claim a strong record of "breaking with his party" if Senate votes are the measure."
Camden 8/28/1998; Jones Beach 8/24/2000; Camden 9/1/2000; Camden 9/2/2000; Albany 4/29/2003; New York 7/8/2003; Vancouver 9/2/2005; Atlantic City 10/1/2005; Albany 5/12/2006; E. Rutherford 6/1/2006; E. Rutherford 6/3/2006; New York 6/24/2008; New York 6/25/2008; New York 5/20/2010
This is true, but Obama has voted with his party 97% of the time. This is taken from factcheck.org:
True, but I don't think Obama is saying to make a point that McCain is not bi-partisan (although I'm sure that's part of it). He's saying it to make the point that McCain is not going to be that different from Bush, and judging by his record would be just as shitty a president. The more Obama can tie McCain to Bush the better for him, and that's a pretty damning statistic.
True, but I don't think Obama is saying to make a point that McCain is not bi-partisan (although I'm sure that's part of it). He's saying it to make the point that McCain is not going to be that different from Bush, and judging by his record would be just as shitty a president. The more Obama can tie McCain to Bush the better for him, and that's a pretty damning statistic.
I believe you are correct, but that fact check was in rebuttal to this quote Obama made form his nomination speech at the DNC:
"And next week, we'll also hear about those occasions when he's broken with his party as evidence that he can deliver the change that we need. But the record's clear: John McCain has voted with George Bush 90 percent of the time."
Camden 8/28/1998; Jones Beach 8/24/2000; Camden 9/1/2000; Camden 9/2/2000; Albany 4/29/2003; New York 7/8/2003; Vancouver 9/2/2005; Atlantic City 10/1/2005; Albany 5/12/2006; E. Rutherford 6/1/2006; E. Rutherford 6/3/2006; New York 6/24/2008; New York 6/25/2008; New York 5/20/2010
In isolation that's right, but the quote you mentioned is immediately followed by...
"...but the record's clear: John McCain has voted with George Bush ninety percent of the time. Senator McCain likes to talk about judgment, but really, what does it say about your judgment when you think George Bush has been right more than ninety percent of the time? I don't know about you, but I'm not ready to take a ten percent chance on change."
I mean, I think it's pretty clear the point is to tie him to Bush. Whether that's fair or not is a different matter.
Comments
TIM RUSSERT: The fact is you are different than George Bush.
SEN. McCAIN: No. No. I--the fact is that I'm different but the fact is that I have agreed with President Bush far more than I have disagreed. And on the transcendent issues, the most important issues of our day, I've been totally in agreement and support of President Bush. So have we had some disagreements on some issues, the bulk--particularly domestic issues? Yes. But I will argue my conservative record voting with anyone's, and I will also submit that my support for President Bush has been active and very impassioned on issues that are important to the American people. And I'm particularly talking about the war on terror, the war in Iraq, national security, national defense, support of men and women in the military, fiscal discipline, a number of other issues. So I strongly disagree with any assertion that I've been more at odds with the president of the United States than I have been in agreement with him.
Note: He's 'impassioned' for his support for Bush's fiscal discipline? Does that mean he'll leave office with a budget deficit over $1 trillion?
He may say that he's slightly out of step with Bush on domestic issues, but a lot of those have been issues that he switched positions on in the last couple years. He still is 100% behind the president on non-domestic issues, though.
CAVUTO: Let me ask you, Senator, all things being equal right now and given the fact that you differ with the president so strongly on this tax cut and on some of these spending issues, would you ever consider challenging him for the Republican nomination next year?
MCCAIN: No, no. But, look, the president and I agree on most issues. There was a recent study that showed that I voted with the president over 90 percent of the time, higher than a lot of my even Republican colleagues.
This is an honest difference of opinion, but it’s also what I campaigned on. I campaigned on a tax package that had to do with a balanced budget, not to do with massive deficits, and I’m sticking with the principles and the philosophy that I campaigned for president on, albeit I lost.
Note: John McCain now supports the Bush tax plan.
Madison Square Garden 6/25/08
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
Working on behalf of just means trying to get him elected. This was not a poll coordinated with the campaign.
The McCain camp, McCain himself, and in ads is saying that former Frannie Mae CEO Frank Raines is an Obama advisor and is advising him on housing policy... Both Raines and Obama's camp say that isn't true, and they have never had contact, but McCain is still saying it on the stump everywhere he goes.
It's little shit like that that annoys the hell out of me with politics. Candidates and their mouthpieces report lies over and over and over again, and are give free reign to do so.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
If Obama is saying they've never even had contact, then he is flat-out lying (or else it was Raines who lied to the Washington Post back in July):
From a profile of Raines in the July 16 WaPo:
(Raines) has shaved eight points off his golf handicap, taken a corner office in Steve Case's D.C. conglomeration of finance, entertainment and health-care companies and more recently, taken calls from Barack Obama's presidential campaign seeking his advice on mortgage and housing policy matters."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/15/AR2008071502827.html
for the least they could possibly do
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/19/fact-check-did-obama-profit-from-fannie-and-freddie/
Statement:
Amid "corruption at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac," Sen. Barack Obama "profited from this system of abuse and scandal. While Fannie and Freddie were working to keep Congress away from their house of cards, Senator Obama was taking their money. He got more, in fact, than any other member of Congress, except for the Democratic chairman of the committee that oversees them." —Sen. John McCain, at a campaign stop Friday, September 19, in Green Bay, Wisconsin.
The Facts
Federal law forbids candidates from receiving money directly from companies. The nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics tracks donations from employees of various companies. The center's list of contributions from Fannie and Freddie employees places Obama second. Ahead of him is Sen. Chris Dodd, Democratic chairman of the Senate Banking Committee.
The total listed for Obama is $126,349 — a tiny fraction of the approximately $390 million his campaign has raised, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The list shows McCain has received a total of $21,550 from Fannie and Freddie employees. The list includes donations of at least $200 from those who receive paychecks from Fannie and Freddie. It also includes donations from political action committees — pooled contributions from employees. Obama decided early in his presidential run not to accept PAC contributions, but the Center for Responsive Politics' list includes all contributions for members of Congress dating back to 1989 — including Obama and McCain's Senate campaigns.
The New York Times has published a separate list looking at contributions from "directors, officers, and lobbyists for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac" for the 2008 campaign cycle. That list — using figures from the Federal Election Commission — shows McCain receiving $169,000, while Obama received only $16,000.
VERDICT
Partially true, but misleading. Donations don't come from companies. A list of employee contributions puts Obama second, but a different list including lobbyists and directors shows McCain getting more.
*** edited for length - click on link for full article ***
Both Raines and Obama's camp are denying that. Who knows... but if it did happen, it would be nice if the Washington Post backed up their story.
Obama denies Raines ties, accuses McCain of throwing stones from his "seven glass houses"
The campaign puts out a statement from former Fannie Mae chief Franklin Raines, disowning ties to Obama, after a McCain ad attacked him for the ties.
The Washington Post reported -- with the kind of blind sourcing that suggests the source was Raines -- that Raines had "taken calls from Barack Obama's presidential campaign seeking his advice on mortgage and housing policy matters."
Raines said in the statement through the campaign, "I am not an advisor to Barack Obama, nor have I provided his campaign with advice on housing or economic matters."
Obama spokesman Bill Burton added an attack:
This is another flat-out lie from a dishonorable campaign that is increasingly incapable of telling the truth. Frank Raines has never advised Senator Obama about anything -- ever. And by the way, someone whose campaign manager and top advisor worked and lobbied for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac shouldn't be throwing stones from his seven glass houses.
UPDATE: McCain spokesman Brian Rogers notes that Obama didn't contradict the claim when it first appeared in the Post.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0908/Obama_denies_Raines_ties_accuses_McCain_of_throwing_stones_from_his_seven_glass_houses.html
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
Did Obama talk to Raines ... probably, not sure, but, it's possible.
Is Raines the economic guru of the Obama campaign, is he the chief economic advisor, or the only economic advisor ... absolutely not.
"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
This is almost certainly true on both counts.
for the least they could possibly do
How would you know that it's "almost certainly true" besides the McCain campaign telling you that it's almost certainly true? This article refutes both those claims, and other than the one washingtonpost article with no source you don't seem to have any evidence to back it up.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0908/Obama_denies_Raines_ties_accuses_McCain_of_throwing_stones_from_his_seven_glass_houses.html?showall
You're going to have to wait for Jeff to listen to Rush or Hannity for the answer in order to get a response to this post.
that's funny.
"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
It's almost certainly true because I don't think the WaPo would completely invent, out of thin air, Raines' claim that he took a call from the Obama campaign in July seeking advice on the housing crisis.
And if the WaPo did invent that out of whole cloth, I'm sure the Obama campaign would have said something at the time. Or, Raines would have refuted it. Neither did, and the story STILL hasn't been retracted by the WaPo.
Secondly, I also believe it's patently obvious that Raines isn't one of Obama's key economic advisers ... mostly, because it would be pretty obvious if he was. The key players in both campaigns are fairly well known at this point.
That's why I believe, like most of the pissing matches between the two sides in this campaign, the truth almost certainly lies somewhere in the middle.
I think I'm being fair here.
for the least they could possibly do
Honestly, it was funnier the first 1,000 times the guy tried to make that joke. He knows one note, but he plays the hell out of it ...
for the least they could possibly do
Considering that both Obama and McCain voted for the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005 that Bush vetoed how can Obama justify running this ad?
- 8/28/98
- 9/2/00
- 4/28/03, 5/3/03, 7/3/03, 7/5/03, 7/6/03, 7/9/03, 7/11/03, 7/12/03, 7/14/03
- 9/28/04, 9/29/04, 10/1/04, 10/2/04
- 9/11/05, 9/12/05, 9/13/05, 9/30/05, 10/1/05, 10/3/05
- 5/12/06, 5/13/06, 5/27/06, 5/28/06, 5/30/06, 6/1/06, 6/3/06, 6/23/06, 7/22/06, 7/23/06, 12/2/06, 12/9/06
- 8/2/07, 8/5/07
- 6/19/08, 6/20/08, 6/22/08, 6/24/08, 6/25/08, 6/27/08, 6/28/08, 6/30/08, 7/1/08
- 8/23/09, 8/24/09, 9/21/09, 9/22/09, 10/27/09, 10/28/09, 10/30/09, 10/31/09
- 5/15/10, 5/17/10, 5/18/10, 5/20/10, 5/21/10, 10/23/10, 10/24/10
- 9/11/11, 9/12/11
- 10/18/13, 10/21/13, 10/22/13, 11/30/13, 12/4/13
Well at least you admit it was funny.
In this case you are being fair. We can finally agree on something.
Examples please? This ad is a blatant out and out lie. Not like you can say he is stretching the truth.
This is true, but Obama has voted with his party 97% of the time. This is taken from factcheck.org:
"It's true that McCain's voting support for Bush policies has averaged slightly above 89 percent since Bush took office, according to Congressional Quarterly’s vote studies. But it has ebbed and flowed. It reached a low of 77 percent in 2005. Last year it was 95 percent. By comparison, Obama's own record of supporting Bush policies has averaged slightly under 41 percent since the senator took office. However, Obama's voting record is no less partisan than McCain's. He has voted in line with his party an average of nearly 97 percent of the time. The truth is that neither candidate can claim a strong record of "breaking with his party" if Senate votes are the measure."
True, but I don't think Obama is saying to make a point that McCain is not bi-partisan (although I'm sure that's part of it). He's saying it to make the point that McCain is not going to be that different from Bush, and judging by his record would be just as shitty a president. The more Obama can tie McCain to Bush the better for him, and that's a pretty damning statistic.
I believe you are correct, but that fact check was in rebuttal to this quote Obama made form his nomination speech at the DNC:
"And next week, we'll also hear about those occasions when he's broken with his party as evidence that he can deliver the change that we need. But the record's clear: John McCain has voted with George Bush 90 percent of the time."
Here's the link if you want to check it out:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_obama.html
"...but the record's clear: John McCain has voted with George Bush ninety percent of the time. Senator McCain likes to talk about judgment, but really, what does it say about your judgment when you think George Bush has been right more than ninety percent of the time? I don't know about you, but I'm not ready to take a ten percent chance on change."
I mean, I think it's pretty clear the point is to tie him to Bush. Whether that's fair or not is a different matter.