Wait, so comparing the politics of McCain to Bush is a negative jab... Think about that, either you are saying Bush's term was good or that McCain's administration is going to be bad. Now politicians have a constitutional right to say what they want, but lets be accountable. When Obama wanted to make it about politics and talk about foreign policy, McCain wanted to talk about celebrities. When Obama addresses his opponents its called using the race card and if people want to dig up dirty little secrets in Obama's past why not just attack McCain's military record.
from day 1 since he clinched the Democratic nomination, Obama attacked McCain's foreign policies, and oversimplified McCain's positions as identical to Bush.
The fact is, McCain
significantly differed in Bush's foreign policy when he suggested the troop surge. This is why Bush and McCain, are fundamentally different, in foreign policy.
Obama, meanwhile, insists McCain and Bush are identical. He deliberately mischaracterize McCain's positions. That is negative campaigning. That is deception.
It's akin to McCain making fraudulent statements about Obama's beliefs/political positions.
Obama was never serious about discussing foreign policy. He always attacked McCain's foreign policy, in order to link him, unfairly, to Bush.
Now, when McCain counter-attacked, and pointed out that Obama was against the troop surge, of which turned out to have been a success, that's a legitimate point to argue. McCain is attacking Obama's positions, or the arguments Obama holds, and not Obama's character. There is nothing negative about this, but the Obama campaign and the media depicted this type of tactic, as too aggressive and "negative".
Obama's surrogates then got a little personal, and attacked McCain's POW past. That's dirty. Rockefeller, Wesley Clark, and so many other Obama supporters have deliberately tried to smear McCain's military credentials. That's negative.
Obama kept hammering at McCain about Iraq, how Iraq was a "mistake".
McCain responds, by asking Obama to visit Iraq himself, so that maybe he can recognize that in fact, progress have been made.
Again, this was a fair rebuttal from the McCain campaign. It was not negative.
It would be fair to say that as soon as Obama visited the Middle East and Europe, McCain shifted gears and started to become negative. It was they who began criticizing Obama, about Iraq.
The celebrity jab was not negative.....it's based in truth, plus humor.
It's without question, Obama is being treated like a celebrity by the media....take that for what it is....it was not meant to be insulting. It's a tactic by McCain to remind people, that he is also contending for the Presidential position, and the media is unfair in focusing all on Obama.
Are you serious about the race card?
Provide one single hard evidence that McCain and his staff (not the blogosphere, or other right wing websites), employed race baiting tactics, on the campaign.
Name one. On the contrary, it was Hillary Clinton who went that direction. McCain tried to stay away from that.
The POW attacks on McCain?
not only are there numerous evidence of smears directed at McCain's military service (
see here, Rolling Stone cover), but they also came directly out of the mouths of Obama's surrogates,
such as Senator Jay Rockefeller, and
General Wesley Clark.
These are immediate Obama staffers.
Name one McCain staffer, who even in the slightest, uttered one racist remark. Sure, you'll find lots of them outside the McCain campaign, lots out there in the blogs, probably in some right wing publications, etc. But not by McCain himself, or his staff. McCain has no control over the opinions expressed by those other than his staff. The same applies with Obama, and yet he's allowed his staff to smear McCain, more than once.
That's negative.
Yeah he was a POW, but he didn't deserve to be flying the plans. Bottom 5 at of the academy. I think Bush even managed Cs. 5 crashed planes in his career, after the first 2 planes or so you think the Navy would have figured out that McCain wasn't fit for duty. Please, Republicans take a good look at your man.
Seriously, you are free to express your views about McCain. You don't work for the Obama campaign, and therefore I won't hold that against him.
But even I have tried to avoid talking negatively about Obama's personal character, unless there's indisputable evidence, such as his past association with Reverend Wright, and convicted fraud, Tony Rezko. Why he is able to get away with it, is beyond me......but if a Republican is caught in association with disreputable individuals like Wright and Rezko, they would have been skewered by the media. There is an obvious double standard.
Also regarding the article, would you rather have a war in an irrelevant country costing hundreds of billions of dollars taking out a dictator which we established or spending hundreds of billions of dollars improving American lives. By the way the first option kills millions, the second saves millions.
You want to discuss the Iraq war? I've discussed them at length here in this forum.
We probably will remain in disagreement, and we can debate in circles about whether or not going into Iraq was the right choice.
But all of that debate is irrelevant now, since what matters is the present, and future. What to do now in Iraq?
But since you insist in re-visiting this debate in the past, let me ask you this:
since you apparently are anti-Iraq war, in 2006, would you have preferred we pulled out?
Are you able to reconcile in knowing, that if we pulled out, we are risking abandoning the lives of Iraqis?
Do you consider that, saving lives?
The debate hasn't been settled. Don't assume it's as clear cut as you think.
Actual human lives, the Iraqis, are at stake, and so we "civilized" peoples, we try not to generalize an entire human race, or a country, in your own words, as being "irrelevant".
My view is that we entered Iraq, deposed Saddam, found no WMDs....do we leave? no. We complete the mission, by securing the Iraqi population. Unless we do that, we cannot simply abandon.
That's just me. I think Iraqi people deserve freedom, just as we promote and fight for our freedom here at home. I believe in standing up for those who are oppressed. I don't understand why this is any different, than liberals who are arguing for more human rights in Tibet, or Darfur.
I believe that despite all the missteps in Iraq, ultimately, we have made the right choice, because now Iraqis are enjoying freedoms that they formerly was deprived of.
Why so many anti-Bush find that so difficult to admit, or acknowledge, is beyond me.
