Mr. McCain had promised before the trip that he would not publicly criticize Mr. Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee, on foreign soil, saying political partisanship ended at the water’s edge. But his pledge did not include a session with reporters on his campaign plane en route to Colombia, he called Mr. Obama “a protectionist” and cast him as ignorant about economic forces in the United States.So, apparently his pledge didn’t count unless his shoes were touching dirt.
But wait!
In an interview airing on NBC News tonight, McCain spoke from Mexico:
Asked by Wallace if he could trust Obama’s word, McCain said:
“He promised and pledged that he would sit down with me on campaign financing, and he also pledged to take public financing in writing and verbally many times,” McCain said. "Well, if someone reverses on a position like that, then obviously — then the question comes up — can you trust their word?"Apparently, since there was flooring between his shoes and the dirt, his pledge didn’t count then either.
What a craptacular irony — that this war-addled bumpkin would accuse Obama of being untrustworthy while in the act of breaking his own pledge. Only the most disingenuos idiot would even attempt to defend the hoary old fart, especially in this instance. Voting for him would be like voting for Bush’s senile future self. If it weren’t for Joe Lieberman propping him up and whispering in his ear, McCain wouldn’t even know what fucking day it is. God, what a shit stain. No wonder he’s so attractive to e-mail spammers and fat white bigots.
I honestly don’t understand how anyone can want to vote for McCain… or how they can keep explaining away his actions without thinking, “*This *is the best we could do?”
Voting for him? Hell, he’s down on his hands and knees, willing to swear that Jackson was the best president the US has ever had if only Obama will consent to dick slap him in the face with his mighty penis. Lib will vote for Obama a dozen times, even if they only pay him for half that many.
I will continue to evaluate him as critically and honestly as I have to date, but unless something changes drastically, yes I indend to vote for him. I did vote for him in the primary.
Given his propensity for satire, parody, and occasionally probably outright falsification, what Lib says and what Lib means coincide infrequently at best.
Besides, I would have presumed that Obama’s voting record is anathema to Lib’s worldview - or at least pretty far off. His MMV, of course.
ETA: Thanks, Lib.
Odd question #2:Why? Because he’s the anti-Bush? Or because you genuinely agree with his platform?
Actually, falsification works too - it means “alteration with the intent to mislead” as well as “to disprove”. Fabrication would have been less ambiguous, I’ll grant. Perhaps I’m taking a page out of your book.
I hadn’t thought of Obama in that way; in any case, I thought you’d be more concerned with his domestic economic policy. Also, Clinton was a free-market civil libertarian* too, but you hated him, didn’t you?
I have stated before my admiration of Bill Clinton. It is Hillary Clinton that I hate. But regarding Obama’s domestic economic policy, he is cutting taxes for some 90% of Americans. I’m all for that.
My theory is that they’re writing off this election, as a ‘no possible win’, and look to blaming everything bad that happens for the next 2 years (including economic woes that are tied to current trends) to Obama, and surge again in the midterm elections.
Lib, my old friend, as a Democrat in a strongly Republican area I too have felt the sheer glee that comes when a candidate with whom I can find common ground actually has a chance of winning. I know you are as giddy as a schoolgirl but starting one or two threads a day to crow about the virtues of Obama is wearing thin on the rest of us, even those of us who support him. Do you think you can maybe take your man-crush to Facebook?
You still agree about the argument itself, that McCain is indeed a lying sack of shit, yes?
If so, have a wonderful Independence Day. If not… well, have one anyway but you’re wrong!
Now, since this election is about trust, per the dominant commentary about Obama declining to opt out of public financing, let us see how much coverage this broken promise receives in the MSM and the blogosphere.
(hmmm… I think I have the makings of a Game Room post right there… ponder)
Let me put it this way…I have deep philosophical differences with Obama, so I cannot vote for him.
McCain is a disappointing choice. I voted for Huckabee in the primary. Unless McCain comes up with a strong VP, I’m seriously thinking about skipping the presidential vote section on the ballot.
In other words, yes, I am chagrined that “this is the best we can do.”
George Will had an interesting column in Newsweek last week. It discussed his impression of a Libertarian streak in Obama. It considered an interesting philosophy he called “Nudging” (or something like that). It seems nudging is a means of affecting/shaping behavior that is somewhere between Anarchy (pretty much my view of extreme Libertarianism) and complete State regularization and control over everything from prostitution to what church you can attend.
The idea of the “nudge” is to make it more likely for people to choose behaviors that will benefit themselves and or society without mandating by rules or laws that they do so. He gives the example of displaying fruits and vegetables at eye-level in school cafeterias and putting desserts maybe on a higher shelf or even in a separate line instead of banning desserts outright. Students still have every freedom to choose their lunch items but are “nudged” toward healthier eating (like fast-food advertising in reverse!)
Another example deals with the severe shortage of organs available for transplant. He suggests that when people get driver’s licenses the default position of whether to donate organs or not is YES instead of NO. That way if people really don’t care one way or the other about donating their organs, or they are just too lazy or forgetful to fill out that portion of the application they will thereby give their consent for organ donation. BUT if they do NOT want to donate their organs they still have the choice to decline.
Very sensible stuff and the sort of “third-way” thinking we need to accommodate people of different political philosophies but at the same time making it easier for and more likely that people make (objectively) better decisions.
IOW-- you’d still have the choice to be a stupid git if you wanted to, but it wouldn’t be quite as easy as it is now.
Oh— here’s a link to the online story.
