Who said it?
July 16, 2008
“Don’t tell [Obama] I said this, but he is an impressive fellow in many ways. He has inspired a great many Americans, some of whom had wrongly believed that a political campaign could hold no purpose or meaning for them.”
“His success should make Americans, all Americans, proud.”
“Whatever the outcome in November, Sen. Obama has achieved a great thing — for himself and for his country — and I thank him for it.”
John McCain’s words today speaking at the NAACP convention. I wonder how many of his supporters would echo his praise. Whether this was just window dressing or sincere remarks, I praise McCain for elevating the quality of political discourse.
Advertisement
32 Comments
Comments are closed.
I agree. This kind of talk is a much better approach to take. I hope people will follow McCain’s lead. I fear they won’t. This is not because I support McCain or Obama (as my posts make clear, I support neither), but because I think, once all is said and done, one of them will be President. We need to think beyond the political election and to what will happen after it, and figure out how we can best work with whomever comes into office. This is not to mean how we can compromise our ideals, but how we can use them to best transform the social landscape, realizing, of course, there is a political element to that transformation, and a non-political element which must never be forgotten. If the rhetoric is purely negative, it will be difficult to overcome the negative and work with what is positive in whomever is in office (and both have positive things to offer, too).
Sad to say, I think that Michael Joseph’s two posts today are a good snap shot of how the campaign is going to go. People will make all sorts of low and ridiculous criticisms of McCain, questioning his mental faculties, or suggesting that he might be a Manchurian candidate, while at the same time calling on people to take the “high road” with Obama.
It’s going to be a long campaign.
Blackadder,
while at the same time calling on people to take the “high road” with Obama.
You read this into my post, as I never indicated that the “high road” need to be taken only for Obama. I would have been equally impressed had Obama made these comments about McCain. I believe you are attributing false political sentiments to me, which is surprising as you typically tend to be quite balanced in your approach. I have stated repeatedly that I do not support Obama, and I have written several critical posts on his positions. What gives?
At the same time, I do not think questioning a man’s memory or competence is the “low road.” Good memory and competence, I think, are characteristics that we would want in a president. If they appear to be lacking, then I become concerned. If a candidate tells us that Iran is training and funding al-Qaeda, that Vladimir Putin is the president of Germany, and that Russia is cutting off Czechoslovakia’s energy supply, all while forgetting his positions and reasons for voting in the Senate, then I call into question his memory and competence.
Oh my, I had missed the “Manchurian candidate” post. It would be one thing if bloggers here were also putting up posts (of equal validity or lack thereof) speculating about whether Obama secretly became a jihadi during his time in Indonesia, but when all of the wild-eyed straining-at-gnats criticisms are made about McCain, the claim that “we’re not for either candidate” looks quite odd.
the claim that “we’re not for either candidate” looks quite odd.
That would be a thought clot on your part.
I had the same thought clot as SB. You think it might be contagious?
OK, let me try again, since you didn’t get the point. Someone says, “I’m not for Obama or McCain.” Fine, I think. I expect to see criticisms of both. But if the person is claiming some sort of evenhandedness, I expect to see that the criticisms are similar in weight, nature, and seriousness. If one candidate is criticized only for his most glaring flaws, while the other candidate is criticized for everything including glaring flaws down to minor “gotchas” that no one but a partisan hack would care about in the first place, then the claim of evenhandedness doesn’t look plausible.
So, for example, you guys have criticized Obama for being for abortion. Fair enough, but then if you want to maintain any credibility as a “Catholic” website, you were forced to do that. So as a matter of similar weight and seriousness, you also criticize McCain for his position on embryonic stem cell research. That’s fair too. If you guys would stop there, things would look fairly balanced.
But if a blogger here (who seems to be supported by other bloggers) puts forth wild-eyed conspiratorial claims about McCain, without making similar wild-eyed claims about Obama, then the rational reader will start to suspect that things aren’t really that evenhanded. Which is fine too, if you guys would just admit it.
the rational reader will start to suspect that things aren’t really that evenhanded. Which is fine too, if you guys would just admit it.
Every contributor thinks differently here and has different views on things, so a complete uniformity is probably not possible.
Again, pointing out that McCain simply doesn’t remember things that he SHOULD remember, given that is HIS job, is not “gotcha” politics. It is NOT the first time he makes mistakes such as those. He is applying for a very important job here and we’re all going to pay him for it… he should at least try to remember a few important things that are crucial for that kind of job (foreign policy anyone?). If I am applying for a job as a chemical engineer, then I should be able to know the difference between density and specific gravity… but for some here… that’s a lot to ask for a man who is going to run this country.
Sorry, SB. It’s you who “didn’t get it.” You really are going to have to think harder.
Someone says, “I’m not for Obama or McCain.” Fine, I think. I expect to see criticisms of both. But if the person is claiming some sort of evenhandedness, I expect to see that the criticisms are similar in weight, nature, and seriousness.
One would only expect to see criticisms that are “similar” if both candidates make similar mistakes. That is not the case. Also, it does not follow that someone who does not support either of two candidates would criticize one more or less than another. If the candidates have different platforms, give different speeches, and campaign in different fashions, then there is no reason that there need be “evenhandedness” over criticism of each candidate. For instance, if one were to not support either candidate, could that same person find one candidate more repulsive than the other? If so, would not it make sense for that person to criticism one candidate more than another? Choosing not to support either candidate does not establish that both candidates are viewed as equally flawed.
If one candidate is criticized only for his most glaring flaws, while the other candidate is criticized for everything including glaring flaws down to minor “gotchas” that no one but a partisan hack would care about in the first place, then the claim of evenhandedness doesn’t look plausible.
This only follows if candidate A and candidate B have BOTH had commensurate “gotchas.” I don’t think a case can be made that current foreign policy gaffes and forgetfulness of personal positions are commensurate with numerical errors (“57 states”). Hence, my criticism of McCain’s forgetfulness and exhibited competency. Again, you’re not thinking very hard about this.
So, for example, you guys have criticized Obama for being for abortion. Fair enough, but then if you want to maintain any credibility as a “Catholic” website, you were forced to do that.
This is a rather unfair and stupid assumption. You seem to be suggesting that my criticisms of Obama’s position on abortion are disingenuous. Such a conclusion can only come from someone who thinks with the gut (a la Colbert) rather than with the mind. You have no reason to suspect that the criticisms of Obama are mere window dressing, or that they are not the result of strong Catholic faith.
So, for example, you guys have criticized Obama for being for abortion.
Each post is the choice of an individual blogger. No post is a collective effort. Thus, there really is no “you guys” in terms of how often a topic or individual is addressed.
But if a blogger here (who seems to be supported by other bloggers) puts forth wild-eyed conspiratorial claims about McCain, without making similar wild-eyed claims about Obama, then the rational reader will start to suspect that things aren’t really that evenhanded. Which is fine too, if you guys would just admit it.
Wake me up when Obama blames Iran for al-Qaeda insurgents, tells us that Putin is the president of Germany, or that Russia is bullying Czechoslovakia.
As far as “even-handedness” goes, here are my posts criticizing Obama:
I would consider voting for Obama if…
With Obama, it really is a vote for abortion
Legalized abortion sewn into the fabric of the Democratic Party
Democrats add Planned Parenthood funding to Iraq bill
For whom I shall note vote
How posts do I have praising Obama? Go try and find them. How many posts do I have praising McCain? Two in the past week:
Who said it?
Mccain Calls Hispanics “God’s children”
As I’ve said before, I’m disappointed in your reasoning skills given your background in law.
Poli, I’m referring to the Manchurian candidate post, which you seemed to support (not by defending it directly, but by ridiculing its critics). Where is the post purporting to fear that Obama is a Muslim spy brainwashed by his years in Indonesia? The evidence is just as strong for such a post as for the McCain post (which is to say, zero).
Again, this is a very simple point. If you and Henry criticize McCain and Obama for their legitimate failures to meet with your interpretation of Catholic Social Thought or other Catholic teaching, great. If you single out McCain for the wild-eyed conspiracy-theorizing, then a bit of bias is showing.
This only follows if candidate A and candidate B have BOTH had commensurate “gotchas.” I don’t think a case can be made that current foreign policy gaffes and forgetfulness of personal positions are commensurate with numerical errors (”57 states”).
Believe me, if you cared to look, you would find commensurate “gotchas” to criticize about Obama (that is, other than the “57 states” quip). Not that I find such gotchas to be a useful mode of analysis in any event, but if you’re singling out McCain’s slips of the tongue while ignoring Obama’s, then the rational reader will suspect bias. Again, it’s OK to be biased against McCain (for whatever reasons you may or may not have), as long as you’re aware of it.
Policraticus,
The way I worded my comment was grumpier than necessary, and for that I apologize. I do think, though, that these latest posts about McCain have been a departure from the normally high level of commentary you produce here.
If McCain really did think that Putin was the President of Germany, or didn’t know that Czechoslovakia had split, that would be a cause for concern. But inferring that McCain doesn’t know that Czechoslovakia doesn’t against any more because he said “Czechoslovakia” when he clearly meant the Czech Republic is not very plausible. One might as well assume that if someone writes “teh” instead of “the” in one of their posts that means they don’t know how to spell the word “the.”
Well then let’s add some errors on Obama’s part:
Obama claimed credit for nuclear leak legislation that never passed. “Obama scolded Exelon and federal regulators for inaction and introduced a bill to require all plant owners to notify state and local authorities immediately of even small leaks. He has boasted of it on the campaign trail, telling a crowd in Iowa in December that it was ‘the only nuclear legislation that I’ve passed.’ ‘I just did that last year,’ he said, to murmurs of approval. A close look at the path his legislation took tells a very different story. While he initially fought to advance his bill, even holding up a presidential nomination to try to force a hearing on it, Mr. Obama eventually rewrote it to reflect changes sought by Senate Republicans, Exelon and nuclear regulators. The new bill removed language mandating prompt reporting and simply offered guidance to regulators, whom it charged with addressing the issue of unreported leaks. Those revisions propelled the bill through a crucial committee. But, contrary to Mr. Obama’s comments in Iowa, it ultimately died amid parliamentary wrangling in the full Senate.” [New York Times, 2/2/08]
Obama misspoke about his being conceived because of Selma. “Mr. Obama relayed a story of how his Kenyan father and his Kansan mother fell in love because of the tumult of Selma, but he was born in 1961, four years before the confrontation at Selma took place. When asked later, Mr. Obama clarified himself, saying: ‘I meant the whole civil rights movement.’” [New York Times, 3/5/07]
LA Times: Fellow organizers say Sen. Obama took too much credit for his community organizing efforts. “As the 24-year-old mentor to public housing residents, Obama says he initiated and led efforts that thrust Altgeld’s asbestos problem into the headlines, pushing city officials to call hearings and a reluctant housing authority to start a cleanup. But others tell the story much differently. They say Obama did not play the singular role in the asbestos episode that he portrays in the best-selling memoir ‘Dreams From My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance.’ Credit for pushing officials to deal with the cancer-causing substance, according to interviews and news accounts from that period, also goes to a well-known preexisting group at Altgeld Gardens and to a local newspaper called the Chicago Reporter. Obama does not mention either one in his book.” [Los Angeles Times, 2/19/07]
Chicago Tribune: Obama’s assertion that nobody had indications Rezko was engaging in wrongdoing ’strains credulity.’ “…Obama has been too self-exculpatory. His assertion in network TV interviews last week that nobody had indications Rezko was engaging in wrongdoing strains credulity: Tribune stories linked Rezko to questionable fundraising for Gov. Rod Blagojevich in 2004 — more than a year before the adjacent home and property purchases by the Obamas and the Rezkos.” [Chicago Tribune editorial, 1/27/08]
Obama was forced to revise his assertion that lobbyists ‘won’t work in my White House.’ “White House hopeful Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) was forced to revise a critical stump line of his on Saturday — a flat declaration that lobbyists ‘won’t work in my White House’ after it turned out his own written plan says they could, with some restrictions… After being challenged on the accuracy of what he has been saying — in contrast to his written pledge — at a news conference Saturday in Waterloo, Obama immediately softened what had been his hard line in his next stump speech.” [Chicago Sun-Times, 12/16/07]
FactCheck.org: ‘Selective, embellished and out-of-context quotes from newspapers pump up Obama’s health plan.’ “Obama’s ad touting his health care plan quotes phrases from newspaper articles and an editorial, but makes them sound more laudatory and authoritative than they actually are. It attributes to The Washington Post a line saying Obama’s plan would save families about $2,500. But the Post was citing the estimate of the Obama campaign and didn’t analyze the purported savings independently. It claims that “experts” say Obama’s plan is “the best.” “Experts” turn out to be editorial writers at the Iowa City Press-Citizen – who, for all their talents, aren’t actual experts in the field. It quotes yet another newspaper saying Obama’s plan “guarantees coverage for all Americans,” neglecting to mention that, as the article makes clear, it’s only Clinton’s and Edwards’ plans that would require coverage for everyone, while Obama’s would allow individuals to buy in if they wanted to.” [FactCheck.org, 1/3/08]
Sen. Obama said ‘I passed a law that put Illinois on a path to universal coverage,’ but Obama health care legislation merely set up a task force. ”As a state senator, I brought Republicans and Democrats together to pass legislation insuring 20,000 more children. And 65,000 more adults received health care…And I passed a law that put Illinois on a path to universal coverage.” The State Journal-Register reported in 2004 that “The [Illinois State] Senate squeaked out a controversial bill along party lines Wednesday to create a task force to study health-care reform in Illinois. […] In its original form, the bill required the state to offer universal health care by 2007. That put a ‘cloud’ over the legislation, said Sen. Dale Righter, R-Mattoon. Under the latest version, the 29-member task force would hold at least five public hearings next year.” [Obama Health Care speech, 5/29/07; State Journal-Register, 5/20/04]
ABC News: ‘Obama…seemed to exaggerate the legislative progress he made’ on ethics reform. “ABC News’ Teddy Davis Reports: During Monday’s Democratic presidential debate, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., seemed to exaggerate the legislative progress he has made on disclosure of “bundlers,” those individuals who aggregate their influence with the candidate they support by collecting $2,300 checks from a wide network of wealthy friends and associates. When former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel alleged that Obama had 134 bundlers, Obama responded by telling Gravel that the reason he knows how many bundlers he has raising money for him is “because I helped push through a law this past session to disclose that.” Earlier this year, Obama sponsored an amendment [sic] in the Senate requiring lobbyists to disclose the candidates for whom they bundle. Obama’s amendment would not, however, require candidates to release the names of their bundlers. What’s more, although Obama’s amendment was agreed to in the Senate by unanimous consent, the measure never became law as Obama seemed to suggest. Gravel and the rest of the public know how many bundlers Obama has not because of a ‘law’ that the Illinois Democrat has ‘pushed through’ but because Obama voluntarily discloses that information.” [ABC News, 7/23/07]
Obama drastically overstated Kansas tornado deaths during campaign appearance. “When Sen. Barack Obama exaggerated the death toll of the tornado in Greensburg, Kan, during his visit to Richmond yesterday, The Associated Press headline rapidly evolved from ‘Obama visits former Confederate capital for fundraiser’ to ‘Obama rips Bush on Iraq war at Richmond fundraiser’ to ‘Weary Obama criticizes Bush on Iraq, drastically overstates Kansas tornado death toll’ to ‘Obama drastically overstates Kansas tornado deaths during campaign appearance.’ Drudge made it a banner, ensuring no reporter would miss it. [politico.com, 5/9/07]
Source here:
http://thepage.time.com/clinton-camp-memo-on-obamas-embellished-words/
Poli, I’m referring to the Manchurian candidate post, which you seemed to support (not by defending it directly, but by ridiculing its critics). Where is the post purporting to fear that Obama is a Muslim spy brainwashed by his years in Indonesia? The evidence is just as strong for such a post as for the McCain post (which is to say, zero).
I didn’t say I supported the post, nor do any of my comments suggest that I did. You certainly like to pretend!
If you and Henry criticize McCain and Obama for their legitimate failures to meet with your interpretation of Catholic Social Thought or other Catholic teaching, great. If you single out McCain for the wild-eyed conspiracy-theorizing, then a bit of bias is showing.
Hmmm…a subtle shift to “wild-eyed conspiracy-theorizing.” Let me get back on track by reminding you that: 1. Henry and I are not the same; 2. I gave no comment, positive or negative, on Henry’s post; 3. I actually never even read Henry’s post; 4. I am only referring to my posts.
Not that I find such gotchas to be a useful mode of analysis in any event, but if you’re singling out McCain’s slips of the tongue while ignoring Obama’s, then the rational reader will suspect bias.
Not the “rational reader,” but the partisan reader. No rational reader would read into my comments as much as you do. I refer you again to my previous points about degrees of repulsion and degrees of errors with respect to the candidates.
Again, it’s OK to be biased against McCain (for whatever reasons you may or may not have), as long as you’re aware of it
I have a bias against McCain but I’m not aware of it? You’re really stretching now. You may want to bow out now and wait for the next post.
Finally, something nice is said about McCain on this blog and it turns out to be more Obama worshiping.
“Finally, something nice is said about McCain on this blog…”
Perhaps that is why people have questions.
I didn’t say I supported the post, nor do any of my comments suggest that I did. You certainly like to pretend! . . . Let me get back on track by reminding you that: 1. Henry and I are not the same; 2. I gave no comment, positive or negative, on Henry’s post; 3. I actually never even read Henry’s post;
You never even read Henry’s post? Given that you apparently never have accidental slips of the tongue, is that a deliberate lie or what? After all, you left the eighth comment to that post, ridiculing one of the post’s critics. (Jonathan had said, “It would be a credible question if there were a shred of evidence over the course of McCain’s long public career,” and you responded, “Wow, you’ve followed the entire course of McCain’s long career?”).
Interesting . . . in this and other instances, you (and Henry) follow a weird passive-aggressive pattern . . . 1) One blogger says something that is basically indefensible (i.e., Henry’s post on McCain as the Manchurian candidate, or Gerald’s claim that subsidiarity “justifies” the “prochoice position”); 2) a critic points out that the claim is indefensible; 3) You and/or Henry leap in just to mock the critic, albeit while never actually agreeing with the indefensible argument at issue.
It’s a very slippery tactic. I think honest intellectual discussions around here would be furthered if you guys were more willing to disagree with each other and say, “Hey, you’re actually not making a good argument,” rather than just ganging up on anyone who disagrees.
Not the “rational reader,” but the partisan reader. No rational reader would read into my comments as much as you do
I hold no brief for McCain. I’m just pointing out the obvious, which you have yet to refute. If you want to pursue “gotchas” against both McCain and Obama, there’s plenty of ammunition against both of them. If you want to restrict yourself to more high-minded criticisms of their substantive positions, there’s plenty of ammunition against both of them there too. But if you criticize Obama only as to abortion, while criticizing McCain for matters as inconsequential as tripping over words, then yes, that is biased against McCain, whether you are able to figure that out or not.
You never even read Henry’s post? Given that you apparently never have accidental slips of the tongue, is that a deliberate lie or what? After all, you left the eighth comment to that post, ridiculing one of the post’s critics. (Jonathan had said, “It would be a credible question if there were a shred of evidence over the course of McCain’s long public career,” and you responded, “Wow, you’ve followed the entire course of McCain’s long career?”).
I often peruse comment threads before or without reading the actual post. And the comment I left had nothing to do with the post itself. Boy, are you reaching!
I think honest intellectual discussions around here would be furthered if you guys were more willing to disagree with each other and say, “Hey, you’re actually not making a good argument,” rather than just ganging up on anyone who disagrees.
Not that you exhibit the traits of “honest intellectual discussion,” but you really ought to pay more attention to my comments on the 1,900+ posts before you begin to evaluate the degree to which I adhere to that sort of discussion. More hot air from SB.
I hold no brief for McCain. I’m just pointing out the obvious, which you have yet to refute.
Let’s think here….first, if it were obvious (it = I have a bias against McCain), then it would be as apparent to me as it is apparent to you. Second, if something is “obvious” then you cannot “refute” it. You refute arguments, not obvious truths. Third, if what you say is obvious (i.e. I have a bias against McCain), then how do you explain that I have written posts praising McCain but have never written a post that praises Obama? Let’s break it down your claim:
P criticizes McCain.
P criticizes Obama.
P praises McCain.
P does not praise Obama.
Therefore, it is “obvious” that P has a bias against McCain.
That’s not very good logic, SB (and I’m talking about formal logic, not courtroom logic). First, one can only make an inference from this data, not draw a conclusion that is an obvious truth. Second, if P must have a bias for one candidate and against the other candidate, would we not infer from the data that P has a bias toward McCain? Third, there is nothing in the data itself that proves conclusively that P has a bias either way.
The only thing I can say here is that you rely more on fabrication than on “honest intellectual discussion.”
I often peruse comment threads before or without reading the actual post. And the comment I left had nothing to do with the post itself. Boy, are you reaching!
Reaching? Come on, don’t be silly. In every Internet forum of which I’m aware, it’s a matter of course that when someone clicks through to a post’s comments and then leaves a comment himself, he obviously has read the post in question (or else, why click through to the comments in the first place?) Conversely, it’s quite absurd for someone who commented on a post to get mad that anyone assumed that he had read the post. Of course, if you’d rather have people assume that you don’t even take the trouble to read a post before stumbling into a debate about it, then so be it.
Poli – Many Catholic “conservatives” seem to believe that not towing the conservative line (opposing opponents of “conservatism,” using GOP talking points and framing) = supporting their opponents.
Not that you exhibit the traits of “honest intellectual discussion,” but you really ought to pay more attention to my comments on the 1,900+ posts before you begin to evaluate the degree to which I adhere to that sort of discussion.
Well, why would I dig through so many comments that (for all I know) were written (as you now want me to assume) in ignorance of what had been written before?
In any event, this is non-responsive. I pointed to specific instances where Gerald or Henry said something indefensible, where you jumped in the discussion just to mock and sneer at people, but you never bothered to actually take a stand for or against the indefensible argument at issue. Once again, regardless of how much honest intellectual discussion you might display elsewhere, it would be nice if honest discussion had been better followed in those specific instances. If you agreed with Henry (on the Manchurian Candidate point) or Gerald (on the “subsidiarity justifies prochoice” point), have the courage to say so. If you disagree with them, have the courage to say THAT without confining yourself to mocking anyone who points out that Gerald or Henry were making ridiculous arguments.
You’re actually making a good argument in your defense (i.e., that you have written posts praising McCain but not Obama), but then you attribute the argument to ME and criticize it for being illogical! That’s really strange. Obviously if I had made an argument in your defense but mis-interpreted it as a critique, that would have been illogical; but the above-quoted argument is yours, not mine.
And as I say, it’s a decent argument. Maybe what’s going on is that you’re just writing more about McCain period, both in terms of praise and in terms of silly quibbles.
I do have more of a bias against McCain. Both candidates suck, but McCain is worse. If I pick on McCain more, that’s why. No need to try to figure me out on that one.
Maybe what’s going on is that you’re just writing more about McCain period, both in terms of praise and in terms of silly quibbles.
And, therefore, could it not be that Mr. Policraticus is actually arguing himself into voting FOR McCain? (Which is what I think is going on, given that Policraticus–like most people here–feels that abortion is THE decisive issue in politics for Catholics in the modern US.)
Obama was in Sioux Falls, SD back at the end of May, and referred to the town as Sioux City (a town in Iowa 90 minutes south of Sioux Falls). I saw it as a misstatement, as I do McCain’s reference to the Czech Republic as Czechoslovakia. Neither ought be seen as particularly troublesome. But both obviously commit such slips of the tongue on occasion.
Obviously if I had made an argument in your defense but mis-interpreted it as a critique, that would have been illogical; but the above-quoted argument is yours, not mine.
This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Is this the best you can do to back your claims about my bias?
What’s hard to understand? You said this:
So you’re criticizing me for a lack of logic. But my argument was this: P criticizes McCain for glaring faults, lesser faults, and everything down to slips of the tongue. P criticizes Obama only as to abortion, and ignores such matters as slips of the tongue. This reflects bias against McCain.
That was my argument. The argument in the blockquote above is YOUR argument; you are the one who brought up the fact that you have written posts praising McCain rather than posts praising Obama. That was not “my claim,” nor does it make any sense for you to criticize me for “not very good logic” when the above is an argument that you concocted.
That said, it’s a good defense (on your part) to point out that you’ve praised McCain on occasion, even if you put forth that defense by falsely attributing it to me.
Give Policraticus a break.
He did not even touch upon McCain’svery recent taking credit for the passage of more or less Senator Webb’s version of the new G.I.Bill, even though McCain vigorously oppossed it from its inception all the way to is successfully becoming law.
And who can forget McCain’s telling a Pittsburgh crowd lest week that whenever he was tortured, he gave his captors the names of the Pittsburgh Steelers defensive line. Trouble was, whenever asked that day to name one such lineman, McCain could not. But this was not just a simple failure of memory in reagrads to particular names; in the official, printed version of the story, McCain said he gave his torturers the names of the championship Green Bay Packers defensive line. I bet he got that story right earlier this year, whenever he campaigned in WI.
Obama is pro-choice. Some would say pro-abortion, though I would not say this.
In any case, Obama is not, as far as I know, in support of forcing people to have abortions.
McCain is for using government weapons and employees to force many thousands of people to be killed.
Hence McCain is worse than Obama.
G Alkon – I agree with you.
Also:
I am sinning by saying angry and inflammatory things about McCain. I shouldn’t do it.
But the idea that the discourse might possibly be “elevated” because McCain says a few nice things about Obama is missing the forest for the trees.
It won’t be elevated, no matter how many nice things anyone says; when people say nice things, they do it only to look nice to people like you; it is a rigged game; and we are going to lose — though not as badly as the people who are going to be killed as McCain and Obama use whatever means necessary (including nice words) to get and to keep power.
“McCain is for using government weapons and employees to force many thousands of people to be killed.”
This is a ridiculous statement. McCain doesn’t just want to kill hundreds of thousands of people. And he doesn’t support the abortion-on-demand regime, like Obama does.
And you have no reason to believe Obama will be any less war-minded than McCain; if you do have a reason, produce one. But make sure you listen to Obama talk about national defense.
Here’s a good place to start:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/defense/