Powered by Squarespace
Search and Subscribe


TopicsArchive - Feed 

Entries in mccain (8)


And out come the wolves...

When Fareed Zakaria, Kathleen Parker and George Will say it's time to go, it's probably time to go:
Zakaria: "I greatly admire John McCain, a man of intelligence, honor and enormous personal and political courage. However, for him to choose Sara Palin to be his running mate is fundamentally irresponsible. He did not put the country first with this decision." Zakaria: McCain's VP decision is 'fundamentally irresponsible' - CNN.com. Parker: "Palin’s recent interviews with Charles Gibson, Sean Hannity, and now Katie Couric have all revealed an attractive, earnest, confident candidate. Who Is Clearly Out Of Her League." Palin Problem: Kathleen Parker on National Review Online Will: "By picking Palin, McCain got the country's attention. That is a perishable thing and before it dissipates, he should show the country his veto pen." George Will::Townhall.com::The Palin Bubble
To be honest, I thought this was a strange selection from the get go, figuring McCain would play it safe and pick someone that he felt he could trust, or at least would add significant credentials to his campaign. Palin is most assuredly trustworthy (at least in that she is locked into McCain's message) but she doesn't add anything to his campaign, aside from the evangelical vote (but Mike Huckabee would have helped there as well). What I find interesting is that there is a possibility that both tickets could change before election day.  With rumours circulating about Joe Biden stepping down after the debate on 10/3 and pressure being put on McCain to drop Palin, could we still see an Obama/Clinton vs. McCain/Huckabee ro Romney or Giuliani ticket? I'm actually looking forward to the VP debate, if for no other reason than to see what kind of ammo Biden and Palin give to the SNL writers.
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Push Polling Makes a Comeback

This report from Politico.com may be the first true "push-polling" i've heard about during this election cycle.
Jewish voters are complaining of a poll that, after confirming their religion, asks a series of questions that appear aimed at alarming Jewish voters, including linking Barack Obama to Palestinian terrorist groups. The New Republic's Jonathan Cohn, who took notes, and lists the negative messages:
  • Obama has had a decade long relationship with pro-Palestinian leaders in Chicago
  • The leader of Hamas, Ahmed Yousef, expressed support for Obama and his hope for Obama's victory
  • The church Barack Obama has attended is known for its anti-Israel and anti-American remarks
  • Jimmy Carter's anti-Israel national security advisor is one of Barack Obama's foreign policy advisors
  • Barack Obama was the member of a board (sic) that funded a pro-Palestinian chartiable organization
  • Barack Obama called for holding a summit of Muslim nations exlcuding Israel if elected president
Ben Smith's Blog: Jewish voters complain of anti-Obama poll - Politico.com.
Those who have received these calls claim that they are being conducted by "Research Strategies". The McCain campaign will obviously disavow any knowledge of these polls, even if the first result in a google search for "research strategies polling" is:

Wilson Research Strategies| Home

Opinion research firm serving Republican candidates, conservative organizations, public affairs campaigns, and major corporations. www.w-r-s.com/ - 19k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this
Perhaps that's all a little too convenient, but it doesn't bode well.  I would have hoped that this distasteful method of campaigning would not have been seen in an election featuring the man it has most prominently been used against, John McCain. I honestly hope for McCain's sake that this is being done by some rogue 529, but given the way this campaign has been going, it seems like both sides are more than willing to pull out the stops, go negative and play fast and loose with the facts to get to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. as a temporary resident.
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

CBS pulls "lipstick" ad, Fox News cries wolf

This little "fair and balanced" gem come to us via Fox News (a.k.a The White House News Network):
CBS News has jumped into the middle of the presidential race, forcing YouTube to take down a Web ad by John McCain’s campaign that the network calls “misleading” in its use of Katie Couric. The McCain campaign is still featuring the ad prominently on its Web site and copycats have been uploaded onto YouTube by other users. The Illinois senator used the The Illinois Senator used the lipstick on a pig analogy...while describing his Republican opponents policies. lipstick on a pig analogy at a campaign event in Lebanon, Va., on Tuesday while describing his Republican opponents. CBS News Forces YouTube to Pull McCain ‘Lipstick’ Ad - America’s Election HQ.
To begin with the CBS Corporation (formerly Viacom) is against any of it's content being used on YouTube, regardless of the group presenting it.  Second, the ad presents statements made by a CBS employee (Katie Couric) completely outside of the context in which they were made.  Third, the McCain/Palin campaign violated copyright laws. Fox News claiming that CBS "jumped into the middle of the Presidential race" is a false assertion, the McCain/Palin campaign pulled them in when they infringed CBS copyright. I'm sure in the eyes of the WHNN this move is simply another ploy of the liberal media to prevent the convervative's from getting their message out.  Well, it's not. Of course, this is completely overlooking the fact that the ad itself is based solely on a manufactured slight of Sarah Palin.  I don't think anyone in their right mind would actually think Obama was calling Sarah Palin a pig (especially since Obama himself stated last night on Letterman that if anything 'had I meant it this way — she would be the lipstick” and McCain’s policies would be the pig, [Obama] said.'

Michigan GOP Targeting Foreclosure Victims for Disenfranchisement

Wow, talk about bad timing for this kind of statement.  The McCain/Palin ticket is riding high after the close of the convention and a GOP chairman is talking about using people's less than fortunate circumstances to prevent them from voting.
The chairman of the Republican Party in Macomb County Michigan, a key swing county in a key swing state, is planning to use a list of foreclosed homes to block people from voting in the upcoming election as part of the state GOP’s effort to challenge some voters on Election Day. “We will have a list of foreclosed homes and will make sure people aren’t voting from those addresses,” party chairman James Carabelli told Michigan Messenger in a telephone interview earlier this week. He said the local party wanted to make sure that proper electoral procedures were followed. Michigan Messenger » Lose your house, lose your vote.
What possible good could this kind of statement do? As long as I live I will never, ever, be able to understand the actions of high-ranking political party officials.

Blaming Obama for high gas prices

The McCain campaign is lagging behind the Obama campaign in national opinion polls in many subjects, most recently polls that show the American public believes Obama is better prepared to deal with the energy crisis than Senator McCain. So, like the good little neo-con he has spent the last eight years becoming, Senator McCain has resorted to making bombastic, misleading claims. In his latest campaign commercial he has basically said that Barack Obama is the reason for high gas prices:
Now, as I am an independent, I don't have a horse in this race (although I will not be voting for McCain, that's for sure). However, I hate negative political tactics and more importantly, I hate it when politicians lie to the American public in an attempt to stir up fervor for their own campaign. And while McCain may be right that Obama doesn't support offshore drilling (or drilling in the ANWR, which McCain also opposes), but to claim that Obama's stance on off-shore drilling on the continental shelf equates to high gas prices is ludicrous. Point of fact, Senator Obama has proposed over $150 billion in spending over 10 years for the development of bio-fuels, plug-in hybrids, low-emission ["clean"] coal plants and the rapid development of other new, clean energy technologies (including nuclear power, as long as it's "safe"). Factcheck.org did a nice little examination of an RNC ad about Senator Obama's energy policy a few weeks back that applies well to this commercial as well. This is an important issue in the upcoming election, and a recent conversation that I had with my father really got me thinking about the way the campaigns are handling the truth. In today's society people are overly influenced by 30-60 second snippets of often misleading information, especially when it comes to politics. Only a small percentage of voters actually take the time to get accurate information and make educated decisions, and that is the biggest problem we face at this time, uneducated voters casting votes based on lies, spin and emotion rather than fact and logic. The real question we should all be asking ourselves is what we can do to change this? How do we educate a society that is more interested in Britney Spear's life than in the future of their government? I wish I had the answer to that question, I think we'd all be better off if people actually knew what they were voting for instead of picking their favorite tv commercial for President. Sasquatch in '08.