McCain Campaign Reaction To Obama’s Speech
August 28th, 2008 at 11:45pm Matt Margolis
Posted below:
ARLINGTON, VA – Tonight, the McCain campaign issued the following statement from Tucker Bounds, McCain 2008 spokesman, on Barack Obama’s acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention:
“Tonight, Americans witnessed a misleading speech that was so fundamentally at odds with the meager record of Barack Obama. When the temple comes down, the fireworks end, and the words are over, the facts remain: Senator Obama still has no record of bipartisanship, still opposes offshore drilling, still voted to raise taxes on those making just $42,000 per year, and still voted against funds for American troops in harm’s way. The fact remains: Barack Obama is still not ready to be President.”
BARACK OBAMA’S TOP MISLEADING CLAIMS
MISLEADING CLAIM #1: Barack Obama Can Bring Democrats And Republicans Together. OBAMA: “America, our work will not be easy. The challenges we face require tough choices, and Democrats as well as Republicans will need to cast off the worn-out ideas and politics of the past.” (Barack Obama, Remarks, Denver, CO, 8/28/08)
· NPR’s Juan Williams: Barack Obama “Doesn’t Have The Record” Of Bipartisanship That John McCain Has. NPR’S JUAN WILLIAMS: “You think about everything from campaign finance to immigration and on, and there’s John McCain working across party lines. Senator Obama doesn’t have a record. Now, he can make the claim and he can hold himself up as pure and trying to reach to a new generation of post partisan politics, but he has to do so largely based on rhetoric and wishful thinking because he doesn’t have the record.” (Fox News’ “Special Report With Brit Hume,” 5/7/08)
· Watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpPp2usgY6Y
· The Washington Post’s Richard Cohen: “There Is Scant Evidence The Illinois Senator Takes Positions That Challenge His Base Or Otherwise Threaten Him Politically.” “Obama might have a similar bottom line, core principles for which, in some sense, he is willing to die. If so, we don’t know what they are. Nothing so far in his life approaches McCain’s decision to refuse repatriation as a POW so as to deny his jailors a propaganda coup. In fact, there is scant evidence the Illinois senator takes positions that challenge his base or otherwise threaten him politically. That’s why his reversal on campaign financing and his transparently false justification of it matter more than similar acts by McCain.” (Richard Cohen, Op-Ed, “McCain’s Core Advantage,” The Washington Post, 6/24/08)
· Politico’s Jonathan Martin: “He’s pretty much a conventional liberal on the issues and has few examples of breaking with his own party, so how does Obama try to pull off being ‘post-partisan?’” (Jonathan Martin, “Obama’s Third Way: It’s All In The Tone,” Politico, 6/30/08)
· Rep. Dan Boren (D-OK): “His Record Does Not Reflect Working In A Bipartisan Fashion.” “Boren, the lone Democrat in Oklahoma’s congressional delegate, said that while Obama has talked about working with Republicans, ‘unfortunately, his record does not reflect working in a bipartisan fashion.’” (Tim Talley, “Okla. Dem Calls Obama Liberal, Declines To Endorse,” The Associated Press, 6/10/08)
· “The Record Shows Obama To Be A Fairly Doctrinaire Liberal Democrat …” (Editorial, “Obama’s Rhetoric Soars, But What Does His Record Suggest?” USA Today, 1/28/08)
· In 2007, Obama Voted With The Democrat Party 97 Percent Of The Time. (Congressional Quarterly Website, www.cq.com, Accessed 3/3/08)
· In 2006, Obama Voted With The Democrat Party 96 Percent Of The Time. (Congressional Quarterly Website, www.cq.com, Accessed 1/27/08)
· In 2005, Obama Voted With The Democrat Party 97 Percent Of The Time. (Congressional Quarterly Website, www.cq.com, Accessed 1/27/08)
MISLEADING CLAIM #2: Barack Obama Will Ensure That Our Troops On The Ground Have “The Equipment They Need In Battle.” OBAMA: “As Commander-in-Chief, I will never hesitate to defend this nation, but I will only send our troops into harm’s way with a clear mission and a sacred commitment to give them the equipment they need in battle and the care and benefits they deserve when they come home.” (Barack Obama, Remarks, Denver, CO, 8/28/08)
· Barack Obama Voted Against Providing $94.4 Billion In Critical Funding For The Troops In Iraq And Afghanistan. (H.R. 2206, CQ Vote #181: Passed 80-14: R 42-3; D 37-10; I 1-1, 5/24/07, Obama Voted Nay)
MISLEADING CLAIM #3: Barack Obama Has Not Supported The President. OBAMA: “These challenges are not all of government’s making. But the failure to respond is a direct result of a broken politics in Washington and the failed policies of George W. Bush. … But the record’s clear: John McCain has voted with George Bush ninety percent of the time. Senator McCain likes to talk about judgment, but really, what does it say about your judgment when you think George Bush has been right more than ninety percent of the time? I don’t know about you, but I’m not ready to take a ten percent chance on change.” (Barack Obama, Remarks, Denver, CO, 8/28/08)
· Barack Obama Says He Voted With President Bush “For The Most Part.” REPORTER: “For a couple of days, they’ve been saying you voted to raise taxes something like 94 times. That seems to be the drumbeat that’s going to happen during this campaign. Are you going to raise taxes in a big way for average Americans?” OBAMA: “I mean this is the standard fare of politics. And the truth of the matter is that the only bills that I voted for, for the most part, since I’ve been in the Senate were introduced by Republicans with George Bush. You know, they were the majority for a big chunk of the time I was there.” (KMOV [St. Louis, MO], 6/10/08)
· Watch Barack Obama’s KMOV Interview
· The New York Times‘ David Brooks: Democrats Saying McCain Represents The Third Bush Term Are “Just Factually Inaccurate.” “Finally, the Obama people are too convinced that they can define McCain as Bush III. The case is just factually inaccurate. McCain will be able to pull out dozens of instances, from torture to global warming to spending, in which he broke with his party, as Rush Limbaugh will tell you.” (David Brooks, Op-Ed, “Calling Dr. Doom,” The New York Times, 6/3/08)
Newsweek’s Michael Hirsh: “As We Now Know Nearly Four Years Later, McCain Was Dead On In His Analysis Of What Went Wrong In Iraq.” “In early November 2003, at a time when Fred Dalton Thompson was playing a tough D.A. on ‘Law and Order,’ John McCain was cross-examining Donald Rumsfeld for real on Capitol Hill. It was still very early into the U.S. occupation of Iraq, but the as-yet-unacknowledged (by Rummy, that is) insurgency was already out of control. Alone among his fellow GOP senators, McCain blasted Rumsfeld for not putting enough U.S. troops on the ground, and for resorting too soon to ‘Iraqification’ – that is, transferring security to ill-prepared Iraqi forces. In an extraordinarily blunt speech at the Council on Foreign Relations that grim autumn, McCain warned that ultimately Iraq could become another Vietnam ‘if we lose popular support in the United States.’ The next day, the secretary of Defense asked McCain to breakfast. ‘I read y our speech,’ harrumphed Rumsfeld (that ‘must have been an enjoyable experience for him,’ McCain later joked to me). Then Rummy patiently explained to his fellow Republican why he and his top civilian brass (Paul Wolfowitz, Doug Feith and the usual crowd of incompetents) would continue to do things the same way. They ‘believed there was no need for additional troops,’ McCain later related. McCain had already realized that Rumsfeld was a lost cause. The real question, the senator suggested to me back then, was whether George W. Bush himself would push Rummy to make changes. ‘I’d like to see the president fully engaged,’ McCain said. Bush needed to be on top of ‘more details of what’s going on.’ As we now know nearly four years later, McCain was dead on in his analysis of what went wrong in Iraq. Right down to the need for Bush to get engaged and fire Rumsfeld. McCain was so right that, among military experts today, the emerging conventional wisdom about Bush’s current ’surg e’ is that if it had occurred back then – when McCain wanted it and the political will existed in this country to support it for the necessary number of years – it might well have succeeded.” (Michael Hirsh, “Why McCain’s Collapse Matters,” Newsweek, 7/26/07)
· John McCain Voted Against The 2005 Bush-Cheney Energy Bill. (H.R. 6, CQ Vote #152: Motion Agreed To 92-4: R 53-1; D 38-3; I 1-0, 6/23/05, McCain Voted Nay; H.R. 6, CQ Vote #158: Passed 85-12: R 49-5; D 35-7; I 1-0, 6/28/05, McCain Voted Nay; H.R. 6, CQ Vote #213: Adopted 74-26: R 49-6; D 25-19; I 0-1, 7/29/05, McCain Voted Nay)
· John McCain Is “Widely Acknowledged To Have Charted A Course Independent Of Bush” On Climate Change. “On global warming, McCain is widely acknowledged to have charted a course independent of Bush. Immediately after the 2004 election, in which he stumped for Bush’s re-election, he sharply distanced himself from Bush on climate change, calling the administration’s stance ‘terribly disappointing.’ McCain had co-sponsored a bill with Sen. Joe Lieberman to curb greenhouse gases in 2003. Bush had opposed any such move, citing possible harm to the economy and doubts over global warming.” (William March, “McCain Bucks Ties To Bush,” The Tampa Tribune, 6/11/08)
MISLEADING CLAIM #4: John McCain Believes We’ve Made “Great Progress” And Families Aren’t Hurting. OBAMA: “He said that our economy has made ‘great progress’ under this President. He said that the fundamentals of the e conomy are strong.” (Barack Obama, Remarks, Denver, CO, 8/28/08)
· FactCheck.org: Obama Use Of Quote Is “Misleading” And “Distorts” John McCain’s Words. “The second and third quotes the Obama campaign uses from McCain are more misleading. The ad shows McCain saying: ‘[T]here’s been great progress economically.’ The quote comes from an interview McCain did with Peter Cook at Bloomberg Television in April. … McCain was making a case for what he believed were positive economic developments during Bush’s time in office. However, the fuller quote shows McCain was saying that whatever progress had been made, it wouldn’t be enough to comfort families ‘facing these tremendous economic challenges.’ His comments overall are pessimistic; he cites ‘challenging times’ and ‘enormous difficulties.’ The Obama campaign distorts his views by using just a snippet of his remarks.” (D’Angelo Gore, “Distorting McCain’s Remarks,” FactCheck.org, 8/19/08)
· In The Full Question And Answer Cited By Barack Obama, John McCain Clearly Said That We Are In “Tough Times” And Families Are Facing “Tremendous Economic Challenges.” Bloomberg’s Peter Cook: “I’m going to ask you a version of the Ronald Reagan question. You think if Americans were asked, are you better off today than you were before George Bush took office more than seven years ago, what answer would they give?” McCain: “Certainly, in this time, we are in very challenging times. We all recognize that. Families are sitting around the kitchen table this evening and figuring out whether they’re going to be able to keep their home or not. They’re figuring out whether they’re – why it is that suddenly and recently someone in their family or their neighbor has lost their job. There’s no doubt that we are in enormous difficulties. “I think if you look at the overall record and millions of jobs have been created, et cetera, et cetera, yo u could make an argument that there’s been great progress economically over that period of time. But that’s no comfort. That’s no comfort to families now that are facing these tremendous economic challenges. But let me just add, Peter, the fundamentals of America’s economy are strong. We’re the greatest exporter, the greatest importer, the greatest innovator, the greatest producer, still the greatest economic engine in the world. And, by the way, exports and free trade are a key element in economic recovery. But these are tough times, tough times, and nobody knows that more than American families including in small towns of Pennsylvania. They haven’t lost their fundamental religious beliefs, their respect for the Constitution, their right to bear arms. They are still – keep America as a beacon of hope and freedom throughout the world.” (John McCain, Interview With Bloomberg TV, 4/17/08)
· Watch Video Of Obama Economic Attack Compared To John McCain’s Full Response: http://youtube.com/watch?v=WynLgJFBxSs
· ABC News: Barack Obama Proved “He Knows How To Twist With The Best Of Them” When He Cited The McCain Quote. “Although Obama gets substantial mileage out of running against politics as usual, he provided a reminder on Friday that he knows how to twist with the best of them. Speaking in Erie, Pa., Obama charged: ‘John McCain went on television and said that there has “been great progress economically” over the last seven and a half years.’ Obama did not tell his audience, however, that McCain’s Thursday reference to economic progress was quickly followed by him adding that such progress is ‘no comfort’ to struggling families.” (Teddy Davis And Talal Al-Khatib, “Obama Twists McCain On Economy,” ABC News, 4/18/08)
MISLEADING CLAIM #5: Barack Obama Will Pay For His Massive Spending Increase. OBAMA: “Now, many of these plans will cost money, which is why I’ve laid out how I’ll pay for every dime – by closing corporate loopholes and tax havens that don’t help America grow. But I will also go through the federal budget, line by line, eliminating programs that no longer work and making the ones we do need work better and cost less – because we cannot meet twenty-first century challenges with a twentieth century bureaucracy.” (Barack Obama, Remarks, Denver, CO, 8/28/08)
· Barack Obama: “I Do Not Make A Promise That We Can Reduce [The Budget Deficit] By 2013.” “‘I do not make a promise that we can reduce it by 2013 because I think it is important for us to make some critical investments right now in America’s families,’ Obama told reporters this week when asked if he’d match McCain’s pledge.” (Nedra Pickler, “Analysis: Obama Won’t Try For McCain’s Budget Goal,” The Associated Press, 7/8/08)
· Chicago Tribune: Barack Obama Has “No Interest In Eliminating Deficit Spending.” “Since winning the nomination, Obama reportedly has been moving toward the middle of the political spectrum. But on the budget, he still sounds left of center, with no interest in eliminating deficit spending.” (Editorial, “Failure Of Nerve,” Chicago Tribune, 7/8/08)
· The Associated Press: Barack Obama Not “Even Trying” To Balance The Budget And “Frankly Says He’s Not Sure He’d Bring It Down At All In Four Years.” “Barack Obama says John McCain’s plan to balance the budget doesn’t add up. Easy for him to say: It’s not a goal he’s even trying to reach. Not only does Obama say he won’t eliminate the deficit in his first term, as McCain aims to do, he frankly says he’s not sure he’d bring it down at all in four years, considering his own spending plans.” (Nedra Pickler, “Analysis: Obama Won’t Try For McCain’s Budget Goal,” The Associated Press, 7/8/08)
· The National Journal’s John Maggs: “[Obama] Has Rhetorically Committed To A ‘Pay-As-You-Go’ Approach By Offsetting New Spending And Tax Cuts With New Taxes Or Spending Cuts, But His Proposals Do Not Come Close To Meeting This Standard.” (John Maggs, “Obama On The Economy,” The National Journal, 5/31/08)
· Los Angeles Times: Barack Obama “Has Not Identified New Revenue Sources Or Spending Cuts To Pay For Some Of” His Proposals. “The Obama campaign responds that tax cuts, once enacted, are usually renewed and do not expire. Therefore, they say, Obama can legitimately claim to be recouping money for other purposes by scaling back the tax cuts. Obama has not identified new revenue sources or spending cuts to pay for some of what he wants to do.” (Peter Nicholas, “Adding Up The Cost Of Obama’s Agenda,” Los Angeles Times, 7/8/08)
· The New York Times’ David Brooks Said For Barack Obama To Fund His Domestic Programs, He Will Have To Break His Pledge Not To Tax The Middle Class. “Both [Obama and Clinton] promised to not raise taxes on those making less than $200,000 or $250,000 a year. They both just emasculated their domestic programs. Returning the rich to their Clinton-era tax rates will yield, at best, $40 billion a year in revenue. It’s impossible to fund a health care plan, let alone anything else, with that kind of money. The consequences are clear: if elected they will have to break their pledge, and thus destroy their credibility, or run a minimalist administration.” (David Brooks, Op-Ed, “No Whining About The Media,” The New York Times, 4/16/08)
MISLEADING CLAIM #6: Under Barack Obama, We Will Achieve Energy Independence. OBAMA: “And for the sake of our economy, our security, and the future of our planet, I will set a clear goal as President: in ten years, we will finally end our dependence on oil from the Middle East.” (Barack Obama, Remarks, Denver, CO, 8/28/08)
· The Detroit News: Barack Obama’s Energy Plan Will “Do Nothing To Answer The Nation’s Long-Term Needs.” “The latest additions to Sen. Barack Obama’s energy plan, outlined during an appearance in Lansing Monday, may win the Democratic presidential candidate some votes from disgruntled consumers in November, but they’ll do nothing to answer the nation’s long-term needs.” (Editorial, “Obama’s Energy Plan Is Fueled By Populism,” The Detroit News, 8/5/08)
· The Washington Post Editorial: Barack Obama Offering Gimmicks On Energy. “When his presumptive Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), proposed a gas tax holiday as a way to reduce the high cost of driving, Mr. Obama showed political courage and intellectual honesty by refusing to sign on to that obvious gimmick. ‘It’s an idea to get them through an election,’ Mr. Obama said. Now he has two such gimmicks of his own.” (Editorial, “Tapping Tired Wells,” The Washington Post, 8/6/08)
· Barack Obama Opposes Allowing States To Decide If They Want To Drill Offshore To Increase American Energy Independence. Obama: “The politics may have changed, but the facts haven’t. The accuracy of Sen. McCain’s original position has not changed: Offshore drilling would not lower gas prices today, it would not lower gas prices next year and it would not lower gas prices five years from now.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At Press Availability, Jacksonville, FL, 6/20/08)
· Barack Obama Opposes Immediate Gas Tax Relief For American Families. Obama: “I think John McCain’s proposal for a three month tax holiday is a bad idea.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At Campaign Event, Blue Bell, PA, 4/21/08)
· Barack Obama Called John McCain’s $300 Million Prize For A Better Battery A “Gimmick.” Obama: “In this campaign, John McCain is offering the same old gimmicks that will provide almost no short-term relief to folks who are struggling with high gas prices. Gimmicks that will only increase our addiction for another four years.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At Campaign Event, Las Vegas, NV, 6/24/08)
· Barack Obama Criticized Expanding Nuclear Power. Obama: “That might make sense in Washington, but it doesn’t make sense for America. In fact, it makes about as much sense as his proposal to build 45 new nuclear reactors without a plan to store the waste some place other than, guess where? Right here in Nevada at Yucca Mountain.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At Campaign Event, Las Vegas, NV, 6/24/08)
· Barack Obama Is Proposing A Tax On Oil That Will Only Lead To Higher Prices At The Pump. “Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama’s proposal for a windfall profits tax on oil companies could cost $15 billion a year at last year’s profit levels, a campaign adviser said.” (Daniel Whitten, “Obama May Levy $15 Billion Tax On Oil Company Profit,” Bloomberg News, 5/1/08)
· The Washington Post: Barack Obama’s Tax On Oil Will Only Lead To “Higher Prices At The Pump.” “But to add a five-year tax increase on top of that to pay for a one-year gift to voters would, indeed, increase the cost of doing business. That cost would be passed along in forgone investment in new production, lower dividends for pension funds and other shareholders, and higher prices at the pump – thus socking it to the consumers whom the plan is supposed to help. If oil prices fall, there might be no windfall profits to tax. Then the Obama rebate would have to be paid for through spending cuts, taxes on something else or borrowing.” (Editorial, “Tapping Tired Wells,” The Washington Post, 8/6/08)
MISLEADING CLAIM #7: Barack Obama Will Cut Taxes. OBAMA: “I will eliminate capital gains taxes for the small businesses and the start-ups that will create the high-wage, high-tech jobs of tomorrow. I will cut taxes – cut taxes – for 95% of all working families.” (Barack Obama, Remarks, Denver, CO, 8/28/08)
· Barack Obama Voted Twice In Favor Of The Democrats’ FY 2009 Budget Resolution. (S. Con. Res. 70, CQ Vote #85: Adopted 51-44: R 2-43; D 47-1; I 2-0, 3/14/08, Obama Voted Yea; S. Con. Res. 70, CQ Vote #142: Adopted 48- 45: R 2- 44; D 44- 1; I 2-0, 6/4/08, Obama Voted Yea)
· FactCheck.org: The Budget Resolution Would Have Allowed Most Of The Provisions Of The 2001 And 2003 Tax Cuts To Expire, Effectively Raising Taxes On Those Making $41,500 In Total Income. “What Obama voted for was a budget resolution that would have allowed most of the provisions of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts to expire. In particular, the resolution would allow the 25 percent tax bracket to return to its pre-2001 level of 28 percent. That bracket kicks in at $32,550 for an individual or $65,100 for a married couple. … But as those of you who have filled out a 1040 know, that’s not actually how income taxes work. We don’t pay taxes on our total earnings; we pay them based on our ‘taxable income.’ The Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center’s Eric Toder told FactCheck.org that ‘people with taxable income of $32,000 would have a total income greater than that.’ In 2008, anyone filing taxes with single status would be entitled to a standar d deduction of $5,450, as well as a personal exemption of $3,500. So to have a taxable income high enough to reach the 25 percent bracket, an individual would need to earn at least $41,500 in total income, while a married couple would need a combined income of at least $83,000.” (”The $32,000 Question,” FactCheck.org, http://www.factcheck.org, 7/8/08)
· FactCheck.org: “Obama’s Votes Indicate A Willingness To Raise Taxes.” “Certainly Obama’s votes indicate a willingness to raise taxes, and Obama has not been shy about saying explicitly that he will raise some taxes.” (”The $32,000 Question,” FactCheck.org, http://www.factcheck.org, 7/8/08)
· Obama Campaign: Barack Obama Voted For A Budget Resolution That Wouldn’t Have Increased Taxes For Any Taxpayers Making Less Than $41,500. ROSEN: “Campaign aides to Senator Obama today, called the charge that he voted for tax hikes on people making only $32,000 a year, quote, ‘bogus.’ They circulated an analysis stating that the resolution that Obama had voted for would not have increase taxes on single taxpayer making less than $41,500 a year in total income.” (Fox News’ “America’s Election Headquarters,” 7/30/08)
· The New York Times: Barack Obama’s “Vote Was On A Budget Resolution To Raise Taxes On People Making $41,500 A Year.” “FactCheck.org, a nonpartisan Web site, said the vote was on a budget resolution to raise taxes on people making $41,500 a year; the $32,000 figure, it said, was the amount of taxable income those people had.” (Michael Cooper, “McCain Goes Negative, Worrying Some In GOP,” The New York Times, 7/30/08)
###
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008


32 Comments
1. gotbrains? | August 28th, 2008 at 11:52 pm
hmmm, a rambling, distorted, and desperate response from the McCain camp. Who’d have guessed?
After watching Barack’s speech, McCain must have wet his Depends.
2. Casper | August 28th, 2008 at 11:56 pm
Frankly it was a great speech and a great convention. The Clinton’s played nice, there were some great speeches and it will probably help unite the base. The Republican convention has a tough act to follow.
3. coulterfan | August 29th, 2008 at 12:39 am
WOW!!!!
Obama DISEMBOWELED McCain!
Can’t wait to see the GOP follow this convention. Compared to Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Joe Biden, and Barack Obama. . . the GOP has NOTHING.
The bar is set pretty high for Sen “Hotheaded Warmonger” McCain next week!
4. OpChaosUK | August 29th, 2008 at 12:40 am
I haven’t watched the speech, just heard snippets on Fox News. Earbama still tries to sound like a preacher.
However, I did watch Beau and Joe Biden–more of the same old, decades old drivel from them, intermingled with the “McCain is Bush” rhetoric. What did I get from the Biden speech? All I got was that I should vote for Earbama because Biden suffered a tragedy when he first was elected to the Senate. No substance, just Ol’ Joe doing what he does best–hamming it up for the cameras.
Soooo, Earbama’s gonna cut taxes for 95% of all working families? They do that in Maryland too, by renaming taxes to “fees.” He’s gonna end our dependence on oil in ten years? He’ll be out of office in eight years–four if Hitlery has her way.
I’m sure he gave a good speech…he had a teleprompter…
5. coulterfan | August 29th, 2008 at 12:48 am
>>I’m sure he gave a good speech…he had a teleprompter…<<>McCain must have wet his Depends.<<
ROTLLAO! He also is picking up his (yellow) dentures from the floor!
6. Timothy Horrigan | August 29th, 2008 at 12:48 am
umm,. minor factual point… Obama is the candidate of a party called the “Democratic Party” NOT the “Democrat Party.”
7. coulterfan | August 29th, 2008 at 12:50 am
>>Im sure he gave a good speech…he had a teleprompter…<<
Ummm. . . he actually WRITES his own speeches! You owe it to yourself, pal, to actually WATCH the speech. If you plan on voting, you need to educate yourself by listening to BOTH candidates. . . You can’t just be reactionary- you need to look for the candidate with the best ideas.
8. Thrower | August 29th, 2008 at 12:51 am
I remember watching Bush on the carrier and thinking, they can’t beat this guy. Despite subsequent problems it held true. I had the same feeling after watching the speech tonight. There is too much demand for a changing of the guard for McCain to beat this guy.
9. OpChaosUK | August 29th, 2008 at 12:57 am
There is too much demand for a changing of the guard for McCain to beat this guy.
I’m sure you’re right, and should Earbama win, I wish him well. However, all I can think of is the miserable four years of Carter, and how much the Messiah reminds me of Jimmuh…
10. Nevada Pundit | August 29th, 2008 at 12:59 am
Obama did exactly the wrong thing, but he did sound good doing it. He attacked Bush and tried to tie McCain to him. No other republican senator has opposed Bush more than McCain. As for the voting with Bush 90% of the time well I stopped counting part way through the list but Obama’s number were up around the 80% mark himself. I’m sure by tomorrow morning the “war room” will have the exact number.
Other than that Obama’s speech showed him to be exactly what he is, a main stream partisan democrat and nothing more.
11. Joe Bananas...in Pyjamas | August 29th, 2008 at 1:13 am
coulterfan :
Aren’t you glad you can post your anti McCain thoughts here.
Unlike Dailykos where the equivalent would have had you ridiculed and banned.
Or the way Obamas camp is trying to silence any discussion with that unrepentant terrorist who also loves America.
Pure Socialist BULL (expletive deleted).
12. coulterfan | August 29th, 2008 at 1:13 am
>>However, all I can think of is the miserable four years of Carter, and how much the Messiah reminds me of Jimmuh…<<
He doesn’t fight like Jimmuh, does he?
And wouldn’t Carter actually be a step up from GW Bush in terms of oil prices, cost of living, and blue collar jobs? My dad raised a family on a working class salary and my mom stayed home. . . THAT doesn’t happen any more.
But I expect more Clinton, JFK, or Reagan (you know, positive attitude, strong economic confidence, and the world loving our country) and less GW Bush, Carter, or Nixon (the least popular and least competent presidents in recent memory)
13. Mark Noonan | August 29th, 2008 at 1:17 am
Thrower,
On the other hand, I’m beginning to have a hard time figuring scenarios where Obama comes out the winner…while Obama may have a slight bounce out of this convention and tonight’s speech, there is still zero indication that he’s spreading his support beyond his upperclass white and African American base…and plenty of evidence that blue collar whites and Catholics are dropping him like a bad habit.
We’ll know better a week from Friday…at that time, I’ll give my prediction of who will win.
14. Mark Noonan | August 29th, 2008 at 1:19 am
Joe,
Looong time no see - good to have you back on the blog!
15. coulterfan | August 29th, 2008 at 1:19 am
>>Or the way Obamas camp is trying to silence any discussion with that unrepentant terrorist who also loves America.<<
Terrorist? Who are you talking about? Ayers?
That’s total BS! Remember, there was a Bush supporter who was affiliated with Al Qaeda. Does that mean that Bush is associated with terror? The Bush family also has close ties to the Bin Laden family and the Saudi Royals. . . both of which have ties to terrorists.
Watch the Obama speech with an open mind, man. He is certainly not a ’socialist’ any more than McCain is a fascist.
16. OpChaosUK | August 29th, 2008 at 1:22 am
My dad raised a family on a working class salary and my mom stayed home. . . THAT doesn’t happen any more.
And it’s gonna happen under Earbama? News flash, dude–it hasn’t happened since the 70’s. Right about when Jimmuh took over.
I’m watching the Earbama speech replayed on Fox on Sky–gee, more references to McCain/Bush. Same old playbook, different liberal.
So much for change…
17. JPL | August 29th, 2008 at 1:25 am
Hmmm, so maybe I’m the only person in America who thought Obama’s speech was obnoxious and dishonest and won’t play well with middle Americans.
18. OpChaosUK | August 29th, 2008 at 1:25 am
So, McCain, in Earbam’s words, has agreed with Bush 90% of the time? Well, the difference between 90 and 80 ain’t that much, especially when the guy who’s agreed 80% of the time is a flaming liberal.
Gotta go shower; I can’t bear listening to Father Earbama deliver his sermon. If I want to hear preaching, I’ll go to church…
19. Thrower | August 29th, 2008 at 1:34 am
My sense after Bush’s speech on the carrier was more than gut, Mark. Those guys had proven they knew how to run a modern campaign, and the carrier event showed they had great talent at stagecraft. After watching the Obama team take out Clinton and then run a solid convention that many critics thought would be a disaster, I have the same feeling.
This is a state by state election, and these guys are working the precincts to identify and register their partisans just like Republicans were doing in churches a decade ago. They are fashioning local issue campaigns (like Yucca Mountain in your state) and they have the money to drive their messages home. Add to that the general sense of malaise in this country, and I think McCain will be hard pressed to even make it close.
20. coulterfan | August 29th, 2008 at 1:46 am
Thrower is right. It won’t even be close.
Finally we have a Democrat who’s not afraid to kick ass. . . not on petty crap like the ‘temple’ of a stage, or whether someone who contributed to his campaign was a (non convicted) member of a terrorist group 40 years ago.
No, Obama fought McCain and Bush with the truth and never sunk into the swiftboating gutter.
It’s funny. . . the Republicans have been looking for the new Reagan, but it looks like we Democrats have found him!
21. Mark Noonan | August 29th, 2008 at 1:48 am
Thrower,
Perhaps - but Obama got skunked in the big State primaries; he’s nominee by grace of caucuses and superdelegates. Now, this shows he had a bit more savvy than Hillary - Hillary should have had her ground game running on all cylinders in Iowa. Had she done that, we’d all be going “Obama who?” right now.
Obama is clearly a man of many gifts and he still has the advantage going into the fall campaign - for the moment. But the fact that the advantage is pretty small should give everyone pause: this year should be a walkover for the Democrats. If President Bush had even 45% approval right now, the topic of discussion would be whom McCain will put in charge of the various Departments…but Bush is stuck at 30% or so, and so even someone as ultra liberal as Obama has a shot at it…and someone like, say, Biden on the top of the ticket would be cruising to an easy victory.
All in all, its a tall order for either man right now - coming in first place, that is; but the basic breakdown of American politics is that America is a center-right nation with a deep and abiding suspicion of liberal panaceas, such as those peddled by Obama. Couple this with Obama’s radical leftist connections, and one can easily see scenarios where Pennsylvania and Michigan fall away, thus ensuring Obama’s defeat.
Only time will tell, of course - and we’ll all just have to see how things come out, and I’m just loving what will prove to be the most interesting campaign in memory.
22. coulterfan | August 29th, 2008 at 1:52 am
>>And it’s gonna happen under Earbama? News flash, dude–it hasn’t happened since the 70’s. Right about when Jimmuh took over.<<
Nope. It hasn’t happened since Reagan and the union busting of that era. My mom went to school to become a nurse during the 80s and I was a latchkey kid.
But, like I said. . . He would be more like Clinton or Reagan. Less like Bush or Carter.
23. coulterfan | August 29th, 2008 at 1:54 am
>>Perhaps - but Obama got skunked in the big State primaries; he’s nominee by grace of caucuses and superdelegates. Now, this shows he had a bit more savvy than Hillary - Hillary should have had her ground game running on all cylinders in Iowa. Had she done that, we’d all be going “Obama who?” right now.<<
Compare the number of voters in the primaries between the GOP and the Dems, Mark. Then compare the fundraising amounts. Please add all Dems and all Republican candidate when totaling both fundraising and number of votes cast.
Scared yet?
24. OpChaosUK | August 29th, 2008 at 1:55 am
I just heard Earbama say “If they have no record to run on, they get the voters to run from their opponent.”
Isn’t that what the Donkaroaches, aka the Democrat Party, is doing? They’re tying McCain to Bush because Earbama has no record to run on. And Earbama himself is doing it.
What a hypocrite. Same old politics…
25. Thrower | August 29th, 2008 at 2:01 am
Slight disagreement Mark. This WAS a center right nation with a deep suspicion of liberal panaceas. It is now a center left nation with a deep distrust of a government that is a wholly owned subsidiary of multinational corporate interests,
26. OpChaosUK | August 29th, 2008 at 2:07 am
Unlike Dailykos where the equivalent would have had you ridiculed and banned.
Or americablog.com. My comments never made it up–dissenting views are discouraged on leftist websites. So much for the free exchange of ideas…
27. Greg-O | August 29th, 2008 at 7:45 am
“Compare the number of voters in the primaries between the GOP and the Dems, Mark. Then compare the fundraising amounts. Please add all Dems and all Republican candidate when totaling both fundraising and number of votes cast.
Scared yet?”
Last time this sort of thing happened was in 1988. Whatever happened to President Dukakis?
Obama gave the same populist “every man a king” speech that Huey P. Long wore out 70 years ago, and like the Kingfish, he didn’t bother with the specifics. He’s going to get us off foreign oil without drilling? Maybe some of his Hollywood sycophants showed him the Mr. Fusion prop from “Back to the Future” and he thought it was real?
28. Brian (Boston) | August 29th, 2008 at 8:42 am
McCain is still using the same old lie that people making $42.000 will have a tax increase. The Washington Post has a graph of the two tax systems.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/06/09/ST2008060900950.html
29. Danish Artist | August 29th, 2008 at 9:48 am
THE CHOSEN ONE SPEAKS
I’ll admit to putting the television on mute when Al Gore came on. This man has been so full of complete horse squeeze for so long that I just didn’t want to listen to any of it last night.
Let’s give credit, though. The Chosen One flat filled that stadium, didn’t he? Never underestimate the dumb masses or Stevie Wonder.
Now … some speech specifics. You hear me constantly complaining about government education in this country. Obama’s speech only reinforces my position. There are so many things that Obama said last night that would have been laughed out of the stadium if only the crowd knew how absurd they were. Those people weren’t there, though, because they were educated policy wonks. They were there to engage in celebrity worship. Last night was a not-so-adult version of the final episode of American Idol.
The Obama campaign is dedicated to the idea of chaining John McCain to George Bush. Once again last night we heard that bit about McCain voting with Bush 90% of the time. That line works because the dumb masses don’t know any better. Has it occurred to you that George Bush doesn’t have a vote in the Senate? So just how do you measure the percentage of times that McCain is voting “with” the president? Well, perhaps you could measure the number of times that a Senator votes with the Republican members. Ahhh … but remember, most Senate votes are unanimous. This would mean that the only way not to “vote with the president” would be not to vote at all. As Dick Morris wrote: “The fact that McCain backs commending a basketball team on its victory doesn’t mean that he is in lockstep ideologically with the president.”
Morris also points out a series of important issues on which Bush and McCain did not agree:
McCain fought for campaign finance reform — McCain-Feingold — that Bush resisted and ultimately signed because he had no choice.
McCain led the battle to restrict interrogation techniques of terror suspects and to ban torture.
McCain went with Joe Lieberman on a tough measure to curb climate change, something Bush denies is going on.
McCain opposed the Bush tax cuts when they passed.
McCain urged the Iraq surge, a posture Bush rejected for years before conceding its wisdom.
McCain favors FDA regulation of tobacco and sponsored legislation to that effect, a position all but a handful of Republican senators oppose.
McCain’s energy bill, also with Lieberman, is a virtual blueprint for energy independence and development of alternate sources.
After the Enron scandal, McCain introduced sweeping reforms in corporate governance and legislation to guarantee pensions and prohibit golden parachutes for executives. Bush opposed McCain’s changes and the watered-down Sarbanes-Oxley bill eventuated.
McCain has been harshly critical of congressional overspending, particularly of budgetary earmarks (ones that Obama supported including the Bridge to Nowhere above diverting that earmark to New Orleans for levees), a position Bush only lately adopted (after the Democrats took over Congress).
Using the same methodology you would probably find that most Democrat senators also voted with Bush 90% of the time.
Now here’s one part of the Obama speech that was particularly clever. As you know, we’ve been talking about Obama’s plan to raise taxes on the very people, small businessmen and women, who are providing about 80% of the new jobs our economy is producing. Obama’s response last night was to say that “I will eliminate capital gains taxes for the small businesses and start-ups that will create the high-wage, high-tech jobs of tomorrow.”
Here, again, is where the ignorance of the American voter (Brian, Thrower, coulterfan, wishedhehadbrains!, liberalnomind) comes into play. I can just the leftist bloggers now: “Danish Artist said that Obama was going to raise taxes these small businessmen. Obama said he is going to eliminate him. There! I knew it! DA is a liar!”
Pay attention now. Obama said he was going to eliminate capital gains taxes. These small businessmen generally don’t pay capital gains taxes. They pay income taxes. Obama’s plan is to raise the income taxes on these entrepreneurs. Telling the American people that he will cut their capital gains taxes is simply a charade; a charade the uneducated and idol worshippers will buy.
Did you hear Obama last night say that McCain describes middle class as someone making less than $5 million dollars a year? Now you may laugh at that idea and think it absurd. Trust me … there are hundreds of thousands of Obama voters out there who will take that seriously; who will think that McCain thinks that someone making $4,500,000 a year is middle class. Tell me, is that playing on the stupidity and ignorance of the American people?
Then there’s Obama’s line about the Republicans and McCain not proposing one penny of tax relief for over 100 million Americans. Sounds good. But if you’re educated; if you know the statistics; if you pay attention you will know that the bottom 50% of income earners in this country pay only about 3% of all individual income taxes collected by the federal government. When you get to the bottom 40% that percentage figures drops to zero. Now just what is our current population figure? Around 300 million or so? That would bean that about 120 million Americans have no federal income tax liability at all. Yet there’s Obama saying that McCain is offering no tax relief to these people. Relief from what?
There was another line in Obama’s speech that is very typical of far-left politicians. Obama seems to feel those with higher incomes in this country have not earned their way. Whatever the wealthy have was given to them, not earned. So Obama tells the adoring crowd that Republicans want to “Give more and more to those with the most, and hope that prosperity will trickle down to the rest.” As I said, this is a standard Democrat theme. Wealthy people didn’t earn what they have, it was given to them. And since it was given to them, there’s nothing really all that wrong with taking more and more of it away from them … just to even things out a bit. Remember, please, that Obama flat-out said that he wants to raise taxes on the rich not to bring in increased government revenues, but to make things more “fair.”
This idea that whatever wealthy or successful people have was given to them is reflected in the idea that people should “give back.” Charity isn’t recognized for what it is; one individual giving some of what they have earned to another in need. No .. it’s just someone giving back some of the stuff that was given to them. Accomplishment and the concept of earning seems to have no place in Democrat rhetoric.
As I was assembling these notes this morning a Wal-Mart ad came on television. It seems that you can go to some Wal-Marts and get a prescription for one of 300 medications filled for just four dollars. That’s for a 30-day supply. If you want a 90-day supply it will cost you ten bucks. There can’t be one of you out there who could possibly think that the government could provide these drugs to you for the same price. Yet Obama told us last night that the private sector simply cannot handle our health care needs.
One clear realization after last night. After watching the show in Denver … and watching the scene at Times Square in New York City last night … there is a clear sense of mass hysteria over Barack Hussein Obama. What fun it would be to walk up to one of those cheering people and engage them in a discussion on the differences between a capital gains tax and an income tax. Wouldn’t you just love to watch their expressions as you detail the way that government has intentionally restricted free market involvement in the delivery of health care? What do you think their answer would be if you were to ask them just how you give income tax breaks to 100 million Americans who don’t pay income taxes? The blank expressions of the faces of these screaming masses would be priceless.
John McCain truly has a tough – almost impossible – act to follow, especially with a hostile media acting as the propaganda arm of the Obama IMAGE campaign.
30. David B. Schmidt | August 29th, 2008 at 11:47 am
I was going to comment on this thread; however DA & Greg-O pretty much covered a great deal of what I would have ended up repeating.
One point of note as a younger child who had to work thanks to Carter–he was and will always be the worst president in American history unless somehow Sen. Obama gets elected and revisits his policies–that is a great deal of what I heard in his speech.
Three part speech full of crap. I could and might dissect it line by line but not worth the effort — it looks official ~ McCain/Palin so there goes Obama’s bump from the great teleprompter presentation of last night.
Should I buy stock in the airlines as all you resident liberal will be fleeing the US for “real” (read: socialist) countries in Nov?
31. Joe Bananas...in Pyjamas | August 29th, 2008 at 11:17 pm
opChaosUK:
My point was exactly that, they have zero tolerance for dissenting opinions, and will hunt you down and ridicule you without mercy.
I see the same streak in the Obama camp with the way they are handling the Ayers issue.
The frightening thing is this “is” a typical socialist mindset.
They are not for free speech, they always have to present their ideas through lies and deception, because they know that the general populace will NEVER support them.
Obamas speech was just that very misleading and full of….nothing really.
Mark: Nice to be back, I do lurk from time to time…:)
32. OpChaosUK | August 30th, 2008 at 3:16 am
Hey Mark, I’m hurt–how’s about a welcome back to the attack dog?