William Kristol wrote a column that highlighted the odd situation in which activists from both parties think that the other party’s candidate is going to win in November. He told how conservatives expect not only that Barack Obama will win the nomination but also the presidency. And Kristol dismissed the fear some Democrats have that the prolonged battle between Obama and Hillary Clinton will weaken Obama. Kristol wrote: “Clinton will probably concede by mid-May. She’ll be a gracious loser (they’ll hide Bill away somewhere). The weeks that follow will be a Democratic lovefest. And the money will keep pouring in to the Obama campaign, ensuring Democratic dominance of the airwaves in the summer.†Meanwhile, a number of Democrats have told Kristol that they think McCain will win, in part because of the war and Obama’s struggle to connect with blue collar white voters.
-
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in. -
Contact us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Chas on Open thread 7/20
- beber on Open thread 7/20
- Regular on Open thread 7/20
- Pages tagged "winning" on Winning message on personal responsibility
- cosmos_originally on Gore wants carbon-free electricity production
- cosmos_originally on Gore wants carbon-free electricity production
- WSClark on National Guard still lacking equipment
- WSClark on National Guard still lacking equipment
- SquarePeg on Open thread 7/20
- WSClark on National Guard still lacking equipment
106 Comments
They’ll hide Bill away somewhere???
Showing your bias so early Phillip?
Of course, I bet he didn’t call his wife a C in public like McCain did.
“They’ll hide Bill away somewhere???”
Phillip did not say it, it came from the NYT article.
I think Kristol is corect. Hillary will take the game to its resolution but, when it is finally clear, she will actually place the interest of the country above her ambition to be president.
The main caveat I would make now is that if she does pull off victories this and next month that it could go into OT.
As Obama’s voting record come out, more American voters will realize he is the most Liberal in the Senate and won’t touch him with a ten foot pole.
He talks a good game, but his record says otherwise.
I haven’t heard any Dems that think Obama will lose.
Who has William Kristol been talking to anyway, Mark Penn?
All the Dems have to do is repeat what the RepubliCONs said for the last eight years:
“The insurgancy is in its last throes, if you will” Dick Cheney
“You’re doing a heck of a job, Brownie,” George W. Bush
“There’s a new sheriff in town, one dedicated to fiscal responsibility,” Ari “The Liar” Fliescher
“We can’t wait for the final proof, the smoking gun, to be a mushroom cloud over an American city,” Condi Rice.
“I don’t think anyone could have imagined that terrorists would fly jets into American buildings,” all top gov’t officials.
“We have to stop all this nation-building all around the world . . . ” Candidate George W. Bush
“I would never commit American troops unless the mission were clear and there was a clear exit strategy,” Candidate George W. Bush
“I’m a uniter, not a divider.” Candidate George W. Bush
*****
Fool us once, shame on you. Fool us a million f***ing times, shame on US.
I only hope they are all right, and some real candidate emerges from the trash. It’s bad when you need a barf bag in the voting booth.
Bob–
If you don’t like Obama, you haven’t been paying attention.
Go barf on your own ignorance.
Yeah Bob, you better start liking Obama if you know what’s good for you!
Chuckle… Now CapnAmerica is telling folks who they have to like.
I guess Obama makes Capn all tingly inside and he can’t understand anyone who doesn’t FEEL the same way.
When one chooses from the lesser of evils, one has still c hosen evil.
Obama’s Gun Dance
by Robert Novak
Posted: 04/07/2008
Obama, disagreeing with the D.C. government and gun control advocates, declares the Second Amendment’s “right of the people to keep and bear arms” applies to individuals, not just the “well-regulated militia” cited in the amendment. In the next breath, he asserts this constitutional guarantee does not preclude local “common sense” restrictions on firearms. Does the Draconian prohibition for Washington, D.C., fit that description? My attempts to get an answer have proved unavailing. The front-running Democratic presidential candidate is doing the gun dance.
That is a dance of many Democrats, revealed by my private conversations with the party’s strategists. As urban liberals, they reject constitutional protection for gun owners. As campaign managers, they want to avoid re-enacting the fate of many Democratic candidates who lost elections because of gun control advocacy. The party’s House leadership last year pulled off the floor a bill for a District of Columbia congressional seat in order to save Democratic members from having to vote on a Republican amendment against the D.C. gun law.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=25890&page=1
Good point Sol. My thoughts exactly. For the first time in my adult life I will have to hold my nose when voting for a new prez. I did have that feeling after voting for Carter but never before.
Max,
As with nearly all liberals, they must hide their true political motivations to get elected.
“Clinton will probably concede by mid-May.”
Not a chance.
It’s going to the convention. Too many of us have lingering doubts as to Obama.
Ah Nathan and Max.
LOOK OUT!!
Those nasty old liberals are gonna get’cha.
Obama’s Gun Dance (Part 2)
by Robert Novak
Posted: 04/07/2008
Obama’s dance on gun rights is part of his evolution from a radical young state legislator a few years ago. He was recorded in a 1996 questionnaire as advocating a ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns (a position since disavowed). He was on the board of the Chicago-based Joyce Foundation, which takes an aggressive gun control position, and in 2000 considered becoming its full-time president. In 2006, he voted with an 84 to 16 majority (and against Clinton) to prohibit confiscation of firearms during an emergency, but that is his only pro-gun vote in Springfield or Washington. The National Rifle Association (NRA) grades him (and Clinton) at “F.”
There is no anti-gun litmus test for Democrats. In 2006, Ted Strickland was elected governor of Ohio and Bob Casey U.S. senator from Pennsylvania with NRA grades of “A.” Following their model, Obama talks about the rights of “Americans to protect their families.” He has not yet stated whether that right should exist in Washington, D.C.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=25890&page=1
Nathan
Posted April 8, 2008 at 9:23 am | Permalink
Max,
As with nearly all liberals, they must hide their true political motivations to get elected.
—————————————————-
Yup. They sing like a J-Bird up to the day of election. (Only Idiots believe them!)
Then their tune changes.
I don’t think complacency is a good thing (a little worry is in fact in order), but if William Kristol told me the sun was going to rise in the east, I’d look for a radical change of planetary orbit.
The man has long since been proven to be, many times over, a shameless, clueless liar, who should not be trusted to report the accurate time of day, let alone accurately report public sentiment.
“they must hide their true political motivations to get elected.”
Is that like Neocon Bush running as a moderate?
Only idiots believed HIM!
Neocon Bush
Maybe Neocon McCain?
P.S. pmom, you gotta admit, Bill’s contribution to Hillary’s campaign has been a full-on disaster. It’s puzzling: a man with such well-honed political gifts, screwing up so much. I guess it’s too personal for him.
And incidently, I think that’s part of what’s been vexing Hillary. People may speculate over the woman/black dynamics, but this overlooks the fact that no other first spouse has run for president before.
As we’ve seen, it’s a double-edged sword: by claiming the Clinton years, she’s had to struggle to establish her own separate identity from Bill. While everyone’s aware of the 1993 healthcare debacle, I think she might have done better to focus on her years in the Senate, while pointing out, with less drama, that she’s seen White House operations from an insider’s perspective.
Just sayin’.
It tickles me to no end that so-called conservatives here are planning on voting for John McCain - a man who contemplated becoming a democrat in 2000 and 2001 due to his fury at Bush for campaign tricks during the 2000 primary.
There has been JM’s mantra about Obama’s voting record, but, let’s see what effect McCain’s very long Senate voting record has on his campaign. Hint: it won’t be pretty…
You tickle easy Steven.
If you can’t get your first (or second) choice, you just support the person that you think will make the best president. In my mind, that is clearly McCain.
Obama’s pro-choice gaffe
THE WASHINGTON TIMES EDITORIAL
April 8, 2008
If you blinked, you may have missed it on March 29 when Barack Obama told a town hall audience in Pennsylvania that he didn’t want his daughters to be “punished with a baby.” Mr. Obama: “Look, I’ve got two daughters. … I’m going to teach them, first of all, about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”
Punished? So those who choose to keep their child are being punished? More than a few moms and dads might take issue with that perspective. As for Mr. Obama, his campaign quickly “clarified” that he believes his children are “miracles.” But Mr. Obama should be reminded — as he has often stated — that words do matter.
It’s puzzling: a man with such well-honed political gifts, screwing up so much.
Y’know, they’re Arkies, an’ keepin’ the woman at home…
*ducks*
I agree, he should know better!
Well it is fairly clear that many, maybe most “pro life” people see a baby as a punishment.
That was my attitude when I was “pro life”.
While I’m not really confident about either Democratic candidate, I have a hard time understanding why anybody will be voting for McCain. Sure, he’s a great guy and all, but he’s older than dirt.
Just what we need; another dottering old fossil for president. He’s already showing signs of dementia.
“Well it is fairly clear that many, maybe most “pro life” people see a baby as a punishment.
That was my attitude when I was “pro life”.”
————
Do you really believe that JR?
I think it more accurately representative of pro-life thought to say that a baby is a gift from God, not to be trifled with.
If you thought of babies as punishment when you were allegedly pro-life, you were a moron.
J R,
If Obama wins the election in November, will you be leaving the country?
Well outlander,
I speak from my own experience. When I was “pro life” I said all the stuff we still hear about “consequences” and “personal responsibility”.
That sure SOUNDS like we are talking about a punishment.
Now I know I was seeing an unplanned pregnancy as punishment. It would at least seem from the rhetoric of the movement that my particular opinion is reflective of at least a large portion of that movement.
“If you can’t get your first (or second) choice, you just support the person that you think will make the best president. In my mind, that is clearly McCain.”
Mike,
Keep telling yourself that. Maybe some day you will really believe it. LOL
Imagine a scene from the Wizard of Oz -
“I DO believe in McCain… I Do, I Do, I Do….”
I am still predicting that many conservatives will stay home on election day. Any with any self respect, would, it seems to me.
And as Sol said, “when you choose between the lesser of two evils, you’re still choosing evil” - bumper sticker worthy, don’t ya think?
“If you thought of babies as punishment when you were allegedly pro-life, you were a moron.”
Character, or lack-of, doesn’t change over time.
“I think it more accurately representative of pro-life thought to say that a baby is a gift from God, not to be trifled with.”
Now SEE outlander?
Even you betray a bit here.
That little bit about “not to be trifled with”?
Now that sure SOUNDS like “Here ya go! A blessing! Deal with it!
I’m more “it takes a village”.
Dodge personal responsibility - give your responsibilities to the Village.
The STATE will take care of everybody.
You can go eat, drink, and be merry! And not work a day of your life!
Hey, let’s hear it for teen pregnancy!
Why. . . it’s a gift from God!
I think it is said Steven that; “insistence on perfect is the enemy of good and liable to get you lousy.”
If not, I just said it. Feel free to use it.
Well, well, well, the word is getting out on Mr. Intemperance / St. John McCain, I see.
“Three reporters from Arizona, on the condition of anonymity, also let me in on another incident involving McCain’s intemperateness. In his 1992 Senate bid, McCain was joined on the campaign trail by his wife, Cindy, as well as campaign aide Doug Cole and consultant Wes Gullett. At one point, Cindy playfully twirled McCain’s hair and said, “You’re getting a little thin up there.” McCain’s face reddened, and he responded, “At least I don’t plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you c*nt.” McCain’s excuse was that it had been a long day. If elected president of the United States, McCain would have many long days.
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/McCain_temper_boiled_over_in_92_0407.html
Quite a guy, that McCain. You Repukes should be proud: he shares your attitudes toward women.
“Three reporters from Arizona, on the condition of anonymity….”
———-
Chuckle… Nailed him CF. I mean, how in the world can McCain deny a report by three anonymous reporters from 17 years ago?
Should be interesting, CF2K. By the way: I previously mentioned an incident where he seemingly kept his cool before the TV cameras in 1986 (i.e. he smiled, and didn’t raise his voice).
Looking back, it nonetheless seems to me (caveat: 22-year-old memory) that he was holding back a more furious rant than his relatively measured, stilted harangue about the “unfair hearing.”
outlander,
Wouldn’t be a problem if it were an isolated incident. McCain, however, has a corroborating history of explosive temper experienced by many, many folks, and that is obvious when he’s pushed even a little.
Do Republicans really want a man with his finger on the button who called his wife a c*nt when she playfully noted his thinning hair?
This isn’t going away. McCain’s character is the issue.
McCain’s character is the issue.
——–
I hope it is CF. I would think then that he wins hands down.
McCain’s character is the issue.
KEATING FIVE
Obama can’t continue to run his campaign the way he has. It works great in primary (and especially caucus) season, but in the general, the glaring lack of command and control is gonna kill his chances.
The cracks are already starting to show.
If the kiddie corps don’t grow up–and fast–Obama goes down in history as the Democrat’s Tom Dewey.
McCain the rageaholic seriously lacks self-control. Here’s a nice account from a number of Republicans who were willing to go on the record:
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/7/5/00548.shtml
You ought to believe less of what you see on the teevee, outlander–even when doing so conflicts with your presumptions.
McCain’s character is outstanding.
Broke rules. Dated strippers. Got so drunk he fell through the screen door.
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/time/1999/12/06/mccain.html
“A presidential candidate is not supposed to talk at length and on the record about the rules he broke or the strippers he dated, or the time he arrived so drunk that he fell through the screen door of the young lady he was wooing.”
H/T to http://www.dailyhowler.com
So, I return to my original statement: do Americans really want a dishonest, flip-flopping, rageaholic running their foreign policy, and someone who admits that he doesn’t “get” economics, running domestic policy?
America needs to hear the truth about John McCain that the corporate media doesn’t want to tell.
That was a good story about McCain that cosmos linked to, even if it is 9 years old. A little critical, but probably fair. A lot better than the partisan garbage CF linked. Here it is again:
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/time/1999/12/06/mccain.html
The cracks are already starting to show.
Mr. C, I think I know very much what you’re talking about. As I said before, one difference between Obama and Howard Dean is that Dean was unprepared for the possibility of winning. Obama was ready, but still has a rather jerry-rigged group of young people working for him–what one might expect from a second-tier candidate who unexpectedly shot to the top.
I’m less concerned about the general campaign, or 30-second ads (I think Axelrod’s the man!), then keeping lines of communication open with the Demo rank-and-file (like yourself)—and not just on Daily Kos, Huffington Post and barackobama.com. And controlling an organization that has gone from a backwater protest to very likely the next presidency.
We’ve seen how even the most arguably experienced political team (i.e. Team Clinton) can mess up royally, so it’s a valid concern.
Of course, I’m also reminded that a little-known Arkansas governor didn’t exactly have official Washington at his disposal either. And fresh faces are good–if they know what the hell they’re doing.
Obama team, if you’re reading this, take heed now.
“McCain’s character is the issue.”
Oh it’s starting to be more than that!
Questioning General Petraeus today, McCain AGAIN confused Sunni and Shia!
Forget the running mate. Get this guy a health aide!
Imagine a scene from the Wizard of Oz -
“I DO believe in McCain… I Do, I Do, I Do….”
Peter Pan’s tinkerbell comes to my mind.
JOHN MCCAIN: “There are numerous threats to security in Iraq and the future of Iraq. Do you still view al-Qaeda in Iraq as a major threat?”
GEN. DAVID PETRAEUS: “It is a major threat. Though it is certainly as not as major a threat as it was say, 15 months ago.”
MCCAIN: “Certainly not an obscure sect of the Shias overall?
PETRAEUS: “No, sir.”
MCCAIN: “Or Sunnis or anybody else then?
Ah, yes, McCain and Clinton in the Armed Services Committee. I suspect we’ll get a thread on that when it’s over (we should anyway).
McCain didn’t confuse the Sunni with Shias. He asked about their status.
The Sunnis were the bulk of the Ba’ath Party in Hussein’s rule and have close ties to the Ba’ath party of Syria.
John Sidney McCain the Third needs to pick a vice-presidential nominee now. (He won’t, of course.) Because McBush is old. He looks old. He thinks old. His wounds aren’t as obvious as Bob Dole’s in ‘96, but they’re there.
Every McPain story all summer long will remind people that the Republic Party presidential nominee is actuarially likely to die in office. Condi Rice would out-woman/Black either Democratic ticket. The Florida Governor “has never found a nice girl to marry.” Mittens Romney? A lot of money (have you seen McSame’s fundraising?), executive experience, and he knows he’s gonna out-live McBush.
Imagine a scene from the Wizard of Oz -
“I DO believe in McCain… I Do, I Do, I Do….”
Um, Steven, that was from Peter Pan.
Poor Max. Reduced to repeating dead news blips, because nothing else seems to be working.
Um, Steven, that was from Peter Pan
Forgetting the cowardly lion in the initial visit in the Wiz’s palace.
Peter Pan was ‘Clap if you believe in McCain”
Lion: I do believe in spooks. I do believe in spooks. I do! I do! I do! I do believe in spooks. I do believe in spooks. I do! I do! I do! I do!
Witch: You’ll believe in more than that before I’m finished with you.
I thought it was in the wiz’s palace. My bad. Shoot me.
It’s dawned on me. John Sidney McCain the Third reminds me of “Dorf.”
I was never that much of a Tim Conway fan, but the “Dorf” (supposedly a variation of “dwarf,” but actually a phonetic version of “fraud” spelled backwards) really ruins the good reputation he built on the old “Carol Burnett Show.”
McSame waddles around like Dorf. Is almost as clueless. And Conway will likely outlive him.
Yes, outlander, as an expert purveyor of the same, I guess you’d have a privileged access to “partisan garbage.”
As always, your attempt to disregard evidence in order to quiet your cognitive dissonance is as transparent as it is pathetic. Get intellectually honest much, outlander? Or is the cognitive price higher than you’re willing to pay?
Speaking of intellectual honesty…
CF2K,
Where is that evidence of yours on how the NRA advocacy under Heston caused children to die?
More guns equals more accidental gun deaths.
It’s so obvious that even you can figure it out, Nathan.
CapnAmerica,
Then I am sure you can show the annual number of accidental gun deaths in this country going up with the increased number of guns?
Nathan, you KNOW the opposite is true!
“Yes, outlander, as an expert purveyor of the same, I guess you’d have a privileged access to “partisan garbage.”
As always, your attempt to disregard evidence in order to quiet your cognitive dissonance is as transparent as it is pathetic.”
—————
CF: Just a reminder that this is not a case of “he who uses the biggest words wins.”
The problem here is not an “attempt to disregard evidence in order to quiet your cognitive dissonance”. It is the crap that you keep throwing up here as “evidence”. For instance, earlier in this thread, the “three anonymous reporters” in 1992 who said they heard McCain call his wife a c*nt (rhymes with stunt).
Well, I have three blind mice who will anonymously testify that they saw Obama kissing Hillary in 1998.
You know CF, if you wouldn’t go so far over the top, some of us on the right might actually consider your comments instead of just disregarding them and automatically going into defense mode. But that’s not what you’re here for is it?
This study shows that gun shows in an area leads to higher gun suicide and a small but significant rise in accidental gun deaths.
http://www.econ.umd.edu/~duggan/gunshows3.pdf
How about the gun crime rate in the United Kingdom sky rocketing after their Liberal politicians made every day people turn in their hand guns and sports rifles?
It appears that strict gun control has the opposite effect.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/pubs/pubd/hestats/injury99-05/injury99-05.htm
This Center for Disease Control graph (scroll down) shows that, for children aged 1-17 and adults aged 18-34, firearms were the second highest cause of death after motor vehicles.
PRELIMINARY AND INCOMPLETE:
COMMENTS WELCOME - PLEASE DO NOT CITE
In 1999, 4,998 youths ages 15 to 24 were murdered—an average of 14 per day. This represents approximately one third of all homicide victims that year. Among the homicide offenders in 2000 whose age was known by authorities, approximately 48% were age 24 or younger, and 9% were younger than 18. Guns are a factor in most youth homicides. In 1999, 81% of homicide victims ages 15 to 24 were killed with firearms.
http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/pub-res/research_agenda/09_youthviolence.htm
How about the gun crime rate in the United Kingdom sky rocketing after their Liberal politicians made every day people turn in their hand guns and sports rifles?
How about you prove it, dipswitch?
Youth homicides are most likely gang related or by some nut job.
Different issues entirely from banning legal gun ownership.
How about you prove it, dipswitch?
#
Zelda
Posted April 7, 2008 at 11:13 pm | Permalink
Oops, sorry, this one is better. It’s an update from just last month, and shows how crime there has increased, not decreased.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGVAQOUi6ec
In a recent comparison of U.S. childhood mortality with mortality in eight other industrialized countries, it was noted that the United States ranked about midway for natural
causes of death but highest or second highest for death rates from injuries and violence (l). In particular, the teenage homicide rate was much higher than in any of the other countries. In 1986 the total homicide rate for males 15-19 years of age in the United States was 15.1 deaths per 100,000 population. For white males it was 8.6 and for black males 51.5 per 100,000– 18 times higher than the next highest rate of 2.9 for males in Australia.
In addition to having the highest overall homicide rate, the United States has an unusually large proportion of homicides attributed to firearms (3). In this report we examine the contribution of firearms to childhood mortality from homicide, suicide, and unintentionrd injury.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ad/ad178.pdf
Sorry, youtube does not constitute proof.
Or even evidence for that matter.
I want to see quantifiable data from a reputable source.
I’m not sitting through 45 minutes of some blow-hard with an NRA hat on . . .
From 1968 to 1987, little overall
change occurred in total firearm-related mortality in the United States except among teenagers for whom the death rate rose from 10.1 per 100,000
in 1968 to 14.7 in 1987.
ibid
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom
Firearms in the UK.
#
CapnAmerica
Posted April 8, 2008 at 3:02 pm | Permalink
Sorry, youtube does not constitute proof.
Or even evidence for that matter.
I want to see quantifiable data from a reputable source.
I’m not sitting through 45 minutes of some blow-hard with an NRA hat on . . .
———————————–
Perhaps you should ask an English Bobby (policeman) why he/she has to carry a firearm and wear a bullet proof vest now. In the 1980s, when handguns were legal, Bobbies only carried a wooden stick.
CapnAmerica,
Your very first link starts with this:
“Preliminary and Incomplete, please do not cite.”
Obviously you didn’t read it.
CapnAmerica,
Let me refresh your apparent short memory.
Your claim was that accidental gun deaths goes up with the number of guns.
So far, none of the links you are citing proves this.
None of us are denying that some 35,000 die every year by guns or that it is just behind poisoning or cars in causes of death in that category.
So, back to the claim you made?
Yeah, Max referred to me that youtube video like it was evidence of something (of what, I’m not sure).
How about the other sources, Nathan?
The fact remains, the United States has the highest teenage homicide rate in the world and over 80 percent of those homicides are perpetrated by guns.
Firearm death is the second leading cause of death among American children and young adults after cars.
You’d have to be a CON to deny the obvious link between easy access to guns and easy death by them.
Perhaps you should ask an English Bobby (policeman) why he/she has to carry a firearm
Perhaps you should just put up or shut up.
Nathan whines So, back to the claim you made?
From 1968 to 1987, little overall change occurred in total firearm-related mortality in the United States except among teenagers for whom the death rate rose from 10.1 per 100,000 in 1968 to 14.7 in 1987.
*****
More guns equals more fire-arm related mortality.
Asked and answered.
CapnAmerica,
What about the other sources? They are a Red Herring to the claim you made.
In that category firearms are a leading cause of death.
When we start looking at many other things like Prescription drug deaths the number of firearms deahts pales in comparison.
Back up your claim or admit you were wrong.
CapnAmerica,
From 1968 to 87? LOL That is over 20 years ago. Try to come up with some better numbers than that.
What a tool you are Capn…
I was right.
I’m not going to argue further with someone who is able to claim with a straight-face that the Earth is only 8,000 years old.
One either agrees to what constitutes proof or one doesn’t.
You don’t.
End of story.
More bad news for the Clinton campaign–
Obama leads Clinton nationally in polls and has opened a ten point spread in Oregon.
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportPopup.aspx?g=e70ecbfe-c65e-4f34-a030-1d9c805f6b35&q=45558
Cap how many of these deaths were committed by gang members against other gang members? How many of these guns were illegally obtained? How many of these would surrender their guns if a ban such as in the UK were implemented?
Or perhaps someone who claims they teach Sunday School, then swears like a drunken sailor on the blog.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_16/sr16_024.pdf
See graph on page 4.
This shows the homicide rate rising from 1985 to 1990 for males aged 15-19:
whites 18/100,000 in 1985 to 28/100,000 in 1990
blacks 49/100,000 in 1985 to 130/100,000 in 1990
More guns = more gun death
Gee, I dunno, Ksgrm.
I do know what I was asked to prove–more guns equals more gun death, especially among children and young people.
I swear like a drunken sailor?!
I resent that remark.
I swear much better than a drunken sailor. Hell, I put a drunken sailor to shame with my swearing.
Capn loves to quote death statistics - something about the macabre that keeps him attracted and concentrated on the subject.
“Capn loves to quote death statistics”
Really. His last link has this note:
In previous reports on ilrearm
mortality (1,3), the definitions of
firearm homicide excluded legal
intervention by firearm. In this repo~
as in others (4#), the definition has
been amended to include those
deaths. The inclusion of these deaths
results in an increase in the overall
firearm death rate and the firearm
homicide rate with a concomitant
decrease in the nordirearm homicide
rate
“loves to quote death statistics”
Yep, ignore those pesky dead bodies behind the curtain - nothing to see here - move on.
As usual, the mantra is IGNORE………….. the facts.
Cap’N,
Thanks for saving me the pointlessness of arguing with Nathan over what “causes” what. Given his tendency to redefine words in whatever way suits him at the moment, I decided it wasn’t worth my while.
Nathan,
You’re a pointless little person who argues dishonestly. When I feel like it, I’ll argue with you. The rest of the time you’ve proven that you’re not worth the bother.
outlander,
And what your post so pointedly ignores are the Republicans, one former U.S. Senator and one U.S. Representative, who testify as to McCain’s repeated inability to control his temper.
“I have witnessed incidents where he has used profanity at colleagues and exploded at colleagues,” said former Senator Bob Smith, a New Hampshire Republican who served with McCain on the Senate Armed Services Committee and on Republican policy committees. “He would disagree about something and then explode. It was incidents of irrational behavior. We’ve all had incidents where we have gotten angry, but I’ve never seen anyone act like that.”
And then a bit further on, the following:
“”People who disagree with him get the f— you,” said former Rep. John LeBoutillier, a New York Republican who had an encounter with McCain when he was on a POW task force in the House. After LeBoutillier had openly tape recorded comments at a conference, McCain got the idea that LeBoutillier was secretly tape recording him.
“Are you wired up?” LeBoutillier quoted McCain as asking. “Of course not,” LeBoutillier said.
“Prove it,” McCain said.
LeBoutillier said he lowered his pants, apparently satisfying McCain that he was not taping him.
“He is a vicious person,” LeBoutillier said. “Nearly all the Republican senators endorsed Bush because they knew McCain from serving with him in the Senate. They so disliked him that they wouldn’t support him. They have been on the hard end of his behavior.”
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/7/5/00548.shtml
So are these folks lying, outlander? And if they are not, where is your refutation of the statements they were willing to publicly make? And if you have NO refutation, as you have not, can you really do no better than to hurl ad hominem arguments at me and then adopt an unctuous tone of superiority?
You know, outlander, if you didn’t so consistently exhibit a great willingness to ignore facts that contradict your views, folks such as me might be more willing to credit you with arguing in good faith. If somebody puts up facts you don’t like, refute them. But lacking refutation, you have literally ZERO grounds to so casually dismiss sources that dispove you.
Disprove me if you can. But if you cannot, your statements and objections are without merit and empty.
I return to my original point: can America afford to elect such a reckless and intemperate man, so lacking in self control and deliberation?
OK CF, if you would like to change the subject, fine.
If you will recall the original discussion was spurred by my pointing out your willingness to link crappy partisan websites quoting anonymous sources as if they were relevant. McCain’s personality was our underlying canvas.
So now the subject you wish to discuss is the one underlying our previous discussion. That being whether McCain’s temper could be a problem if he were elected president.
Having set the table, let’s take a look at your evidence. McCain been in Congress about 26 years according to Wikipedia. You presented two people who have complained about Mr. McCain’s nastiness. I don’t know about the relationship between McCain and your linked sources, other than they don’t like him. Did they get a taste of his temper for good reason? I notice one of them dropped his pants because McCain made him. That’s a good one! The other was a candidate for president with McCain. So the motives of your sources are yet to be determined, but suspect.
I’m sure there are others. I would be shocked if there were not. In 26 years dealing with hot political issues how could there not be? But I don’t see so many that it is overly concerning. And did McCain lose control in any of those alleged incidences?
Also, you quoted the following: “He is a vicious person,” LeBoutillier said. “Nearly all the Republican senators endorsed Bush because they knew McCain from serving with him in the Senate. They so disliked him that they wouldn’t support him. They have been on the hard end of his behavior.”
Now this is the same guy that says McCain had him drop his pants. (snicker.. ahem, sorry) And just where all of those senators now CF? Only the pants dropping Senator knows.
So, how’s that for methodical examination and analysis of your evidence CF? I continue to keep an open mind. But I have seen nothing that comes close to outweighing McCain’s tremendous qualifications. Which are in stark contrast to the Democrat candidates lack.
“But I have seen nothing that comes close to outweighing McCain’s tremendous qualifications.”
Do you mean like his tremendous judgment when it came to invading Iraq or do you mean his current 100 year plan for Iraq?
“Of course, I bet he didn’t call his wife a C in public like McCain did.”
In fairness to McCain, he responded to someone’s question about beating the “B-word” - he did not call her the C-word or anything else that I know of. P-Mom, pay attention, I do hate defending Republics…
The whole C-word controversy, is a different subject, if I am recalling correctly.
Stephen Davis,
I provided the link upthread: here it is again.
“Three reporters from Arizona, on the condition of anonymity, also let me in on another incident involving McCain’s intemperateness. In his 1992 Senate bid, McCain was joined on the campaign trail by his wife, Cindy, as well as campaign aide Doug Cole and consultant Wes Gullett. At one point, Cindy playfully twirled McCain’s hair and said, “You’re getting a little thin up there.” McCain’s face reddened, and he responded, “At least I don’t plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you c*nt.”
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/McCain_temper_boiled_over_in_92_0407.html
outlander,
If a source is anonymous, you reject it outright; if it is on the record, you impute various motives that permit you to dismiss it. Nice version of “heads I win, tails you lose,” even if it says more about your need for denial than it does about the veracity of the source.
It is worth noting, outlander, that in a REFUTATION you disprove the assertions made by another. Here you have done nothing of the sort; all you’ve done is to impute various motives in an effort to destroy the credibility of those with whom you disagree. That isn’t a refutation.
And, as further evidence for my assertion, here’s a nice exchange between McCain and Senator John Cornyn (TX-R):
“At a bipartisan gathering in an ornate meeting room just off the Senate floor, McCain complained that Cornyn was raising petty objections to a compromise plan being worked out between Senate Republicans and Democrats and the White House. He used a curse word associated with chickens and accused Cornyn of raising the issue just to torpedo a deal.
Things got really heated when Cornyn accused McCain of being too busy campaigning for president to take part in the negotiations, which have gone on for months behind closed doors. “Wait a second here,” Cornyn said to McCain. “I’ve been sitting in here for all of these negotiations and you just parachute in here on the last day. You’re out of line.”
McCain, a former Navy pilot, then used language more accustomed to sailors (not to mention the current vice president, who made news a few years back after a verbal encounter with Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont).
“[Expletive] you! I know more about this than anyone else in the room,” shouted McCain at Cornyn. McCain helped craft a bill in 2006 that passed the Senate but couldn’t be compromised with a House bill that was much tougher on illegal immigrants.”
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2007/05/mccain_cornyn_cursing_showdown.html
I suppose, outlander, you can dismiss the “multiple sources, Republican and Democratic,” who confirm the story. But as has been demonstrated and exploited by Repukes so well, the meme is “out there,” and there’s not much you can do or say about it. McCain is who McCain is. The fact that you will go to any length to deny the evidence says little about McCain, but everything about you.
Oh come on CF! Have you lived such a sheltered life that someone calling another a “chickensh*t” shocks you? I doubt it. That being the case, my guess is that you are trying to shock little old ladies. Man, I hope the left has more than this, because this is pretty weak stuff.
Now, should McCain try to tone down his colorful language? I’d like to see it, although it doesn’t concern me. Does it have anything to do with whether he is fit to serve as prez? Of course not.
outlander,
So, one Republican senator losing his self-control to the extent of yelling “F*ck you!” at another, in public isn’t a big deal in your book, evidently. I’d never have guessed it from your regular trips to the fainting couch in “horror!” at the nasty things that folks on the left have to say.
Not that your flexible standard of what counts as acceptable discourse is any surprise: what your side does it fine when your side does it, after all.
By my reckoning, when someone isn’t man enough to be called out by someone who disagrees with him, and responds by acting out with a childish temper tantrum, that’s not the person I’m guessing that most Americans want in charge of a nuclear arsenal.
And with regard to intemperance, here’s a nice compendium of McCain’s greatest hits as of 1997:
“STROM THURMOND In January 1995, McCain was midway through an opening statement at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing when chairman Strom Thurmond asked, “Is the senator about through?” McCain glared at Thurmond, thanked him for his “courtesy” (translation: buzz off), and continued on. McCain later confronted Thurmond on the Senate floor. A scuffle ensued, and the two didn’t part friends.
SAM NUNN When John Tower’s 1989 bid to become Secretary of Defense was shot down in a blaze of leaked memos about Tower’s womanizing and drinking problems, McCain took his good friend’s demise personally. “It should have been handled differently,” he says. Looking for culprits, an irate McCain took to the Senate floor and fingered then-Senator Sam Nunn. The two would later collaborate on other projects. “I try not to make it personal,” McCain says.
CHARLES KEATING While building a vast financial empire, flamboyant Arizona banker Charles Keating lavished campaign contributions on key politicians, including McCain. When federal officials launched a criminal investigation of his dealings, Keating bluntly asked McCain and four other senators to block the investigation. McCain refused, and after a testy confrontation in McCain’s office, he threw Keating out.
ROBERT TORRICELLI Does a 1987 Supreme Court decision protect Indian gaming? Representative Robert Torricelli testified before a 1995 hearing of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee that he’d read the decision in question and concluded it did not. “Well, read it again,” McCain said, “because you didn’t understand it if you read it. You couldn’t have understood it if you did read it because your interpretation of it is flat-out wrong.” Torricelli got in all of eight words before the hammer came down. “I’m running this committee hearing, Congressman Torricelli,” McCain said. “And I will allow you to speak when you are requested to do so.”
JOHN DALTON Navy Secretary Dalton came to McCain’s office one day and vowed to protect Commander Robert Stumpf. The onetime leader of the Blue Angels and a decorated pilot in the Persian Gulf War, Stumpf was under attack for a fleeting involvement in the notorious Tailhook escapade. When McCain thought Dalton had backed off by sending a Navy lawyer to interrogate Stumpf, he called the Secretary and said: “I don’t believe you’re standing up for the Navy. We will have nothing to do with one another anymore.” And he hung up the phone.
ROSS PEROT MIA/POW groups denounced McCain when he backed President Clinton’s efforts to normalize relations with Vietnam. When Ross Perot, who had financed the POW cause, joined the attack, McCain told a reporter that Perot is “nuttier than a fruitcake, and you can quote me.” When Perot phoned to complain, McCain called him “nutty” again.
ROBERT BYRD The prince of pork, Robert Byrd of West Virginia, has disciplined Senate colleagues by dispensing or withholding federal largess. Not McCain. He took to the Senate floor to challenge Byrd’s spending “billions of dollars” on projects “directly related to virtues other than merit” and finally beat Byrd to win the line-item veto for the President.
DAVID PRYOR The Senate’s special counsel recommended in 1990 dropping charges against McCain for doing anything illegal or even unseemly to shield savings-and-loan operator Charles Keating from federal investigators. Yet Democrat David Pryor of Arkansas kept voting against freeing McCain from the Senate’s Keating Five investigation. “It was purely political,” says McCain, who didn’t speak to Pryor for nearly six years. Alabama’s Howell Heflin got the same silent treatment.”
http://www.washingtonian.com/articles/people/6506.html
Classy guy, that McCain. Very much in control of his temper and able to make rational, well-advised decisions.
Did you read this before you posted it, CF? Most are stories of events for which McCain should be applauded. The rest are innocuous. Overall, I see the profile of a leader who doesn’t take much crap.
I suppose that you prefer your politicians to be geldings.
Thanks though, from the McCain campaign!
Regular
Posted April 8, 2008 at 3:52 pm | Permalink
Capn loves to quote death statistics - something about the macabre that keeps him attracted and concentrated on the subject.
and you like to laugh about kiddie porn — you loser