Speaking of foreign soil, by the way, it’s especially disconcerting that McCain seized on the hostage rescue as an opportunity to score political points. His surrogate, Joe Lieberman, called the coincidence of the event “fortuitous”, and said that it showed how much the Colombian president trusts McCain — and him too, of course. No mention of whether the Colombian president trusted Lindsay Graham, who also was along for the ride.
There was also precious little coverage of McCain’s own weasly attempt to back out of public financing in February. It failed only because he had tied a bank loan to public funds, and was advised that he could not forfeit that collateral.
Except that McCain has just promoted Steve Schmidt to head his operations. Schmidt is a longtime Karl Rove operative. (Here’s a cite for that claim for people who don’t watch the news.)
That was interesting. Thanks!
I had seen that. Doesn’t change my theory. They’ll play it out, but I don’t think they expect to win. Watch how much $$ he raises. that’ll be quite telling, I think. (forgot to add to my prior post that in addition to blaming everything bad that happens on Obama, they’ll claim credit for anything good that happens in the next 2 years as well - ‘it was our policies in place that led to this good thing’, standard stufff, really).
I wonder if Liberal will get an edict similar to Reeder’s issued to him; no more Obama/McCain threads, which will of course lead to his banning.
Sad, really. Lib, I don’t always agree with you but you’ve been one of the posters I’ve respected most over the years. Lay off this shit. It’s very unbecoming of you.
There (2, in particular) posters here that I can think of whose intelligence pales in comparison to yours, and I expect the Obama worship out of them. You, (and DtC), I’m disappointed in.
Say no more! Know what I mean? 
I honestly don’t understand that sort of complaint — for a number of reasons. It is only very lately that I’ve become interested in the election, and that is because the closest thing to a classical liberal since Goldwater is running. I have a nine-year history here, and along the way I’ve heard that I start too many threads on libertarianism, too many threads on philosophy, too many threads on modal logic, too many threads on God, and now too many threads on Obama and McCain. Have you looked at threads I’ve started in MPSIMS, GQ, IMHO, and CS? None of them are about any of that. Plus, Brainglutton has more political threads in GD than I have. And other people have them there, too. Finally, why should you care what threads I start or what they’re about? Why would your respect for me hinge on what I want to discuss? I don’t know how to please people who want me to be certain ways; I’ve tried before, and it’s a waste of time. What you hate, someone else will like, and vice-versa. If you respect me, I’m glad; but if you don’t, I can’t help it. I am who I am, and that’s that.
Says who?
It’s not just the volume of the threads; obviously if you were starting 12 threads a day about cookies I wouldn’t give a shit. It’s more the rabid adulation of Obama combined with the borderline irrational hatred for everything McCain says. I’m waiting for McCain to say something, get pitted for it, and then Obama comes out in agreement with him the next day - or has that already happened? I mean . . . nothing in your OP sounded that bad to me at all. And I bet almost everyone here took the opposite stance on this issue when the Dixie Chicks were criticized for making remarks “on foreign soil.”
Is there a better word than “surrogate?” Or is that the appropriate and accurate term?
A recent Great Debate thread hinged upon an article calling General Wesley Clark a “surrogate” of Obama, and I conveyed my dismay at the use of that word when it was obviously an attempt to smear Senator Obama with the words of a supporter.
In the interests of fair play, I ask: is the word “surrogate” the correct one?
You know, personally, I don’t care what McCain says about Obama, or where he says it. I just can’t stand the hypocrisy of the situation.
Poodle.
Oh, were you happy about Bush? I remember some of my Republican friends shamefacedly saying the same thing in 2000, before they went out and voted for him. Even at the time, before we saw what a catastrophe he would be, it was clear to see he couldn’t even make it through a speech without sounding like one of Jerry’s Kids. McCain is a MUCH stronger candidate than Bush ever was – not that I have any plans to vote for him.
It’s the word talking heads use, and so I use it too for lack of anything better. But it does mean specifically someone with an official or longtime association with the campaign. Take a look at McCain’s appearances, and see how many times you see Lieberman. Then take a look at Obama’s appearances, and see how many times you see Clark. That will be umpteen versus zero. (Clark, in fact, was a Hillary supporter until she conceded.)
That’s probably true, but there is a longstanding principle in American political campaigns that they “end at the waters edge”, meaning they are not carried out in foreign countries. The Dixie Chicks weren’t running for anything, so there should have been no expectation with regard to them.
Please provide a cite showing that the Dixie Chicks promised not to criticize the President.
.
This thread makes my eyeballs vomit the tears of unborn puppies.
Is it thread-shitting when the thread is already so full of shit that the poopsmith called and he wanted his poop back?
(yeah yeah yeah… don’t have to read the thread… I just can’t help myself. Every time I see a political thread I think "wow, dopers sure are smart, maybe I’ll be privy to some enlightened discourse. Oh wait, no, fuck me.)
You honestly thought a pit thread with ‘lying sack of shit’ in the title would constitute enlightened discourse?
I’ve seen many a vulgar pit thread that’s spurred interesting discussion. Then again, on the whole I also tend to be naive and unrealistically optimistic.
You know, I’m really not seeing the difference. And I’m sure you could almost fit everything I’ve never heard into the grand canyon, but just for the record, I’ve never heard that.
yawn. :rolleyes:. If you’re going to play like that, please provide a cite of you criticizing every political candidate ever.
Wow. Um. OK. Guess I missed something.
Alls I was suggesting is that:
A) taking McCain to task for saying he wouldn’t criticize Obama and then doing it anyway, and
B) taking the Dixie Chicks to task to criticizing the President,
are not really comparable. That is, it ain’t the criticism, it’s the saying he wasn’t gunna criticize. Which they didn’t.
Right?
.