John McCain has claimed in recent days that Barack Obama “would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign” and has run advertisements accusing Obama of being responsible for high gas prices. But in going negative so soon, McCain risks putting off the independent voters he needs to win. Still, Dan Schnur, who worked on McCain’s 2000 campaign, told the New York Times that the McCain camp seems to be responding to the primary fight between Obama and Hillary Clinton. “Obama is at his best when he talks from the mountaintop, and Clinton showed that the best hope for an opponent is to pull him back down to earth,” Schnur said. “McCain’s campaign quickly decided not to wait as long as she did.”
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
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Politico on Health care reform would save state money
- Politico on So they said
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/22
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/22
38 Comments
Sad to see what has happened to McCain he now stands for nothing.The gop knows they cant win on McCain’s merits so there only hope is the same old politics of destruction.McCain of 2000 would not vote for mcCain of today.Interesting the silence from john on the ted stevens indictment since the two hated each other with ill feelings rarely seen amongst senators.John has lost his guts as well respect from most non gop(god only party)members.
With all due respect to Mr. Schnur, I would assert that the shift in tone of John McCain’s shipwrecked campaign has been the addition of Steve Schmidt, orchestrator of George Bush’s 2004 re-election bid and Sam Alito’s 2006 campaign for the Supreme Court.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/31/us/politics/31campaign.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin
McCain’s tired-ass candidacy truly has nothing to offer beyond what we’ve seen, again and again, from the George Bush / Karl Rove wing of the Repuke party. We ain’t seen nothing yet with regard to how ugly McCain’s attacks are going to get. Without ugly, he’s got nothing; same tired-ass stupid Repuke world view Mk. III that the voters hate.
And from the Repuke standpoint, it’s all a win-win; when John McCain loses the election, the Repukes will still have done everything they can to poison the well for an Obama Presidency.
As they’ve shown from their decision to shut down the Congress, Repukes aren’t above kneecapping democracy when the electorate throws them out of power.
This is the only way McCain can get attention. His policies are too in line with the democratic party to show a difference. Time lines for withdrawal from Iraq are the soup du jour. With out Iraq, what does McCain have?
I still have absolutely NO understanding of why McCain has been touted as stronger on foreign policy and keeping us safe and all that??
I am sincerely pleased he has lived well and long in spite of the torture as a POW. But, I can’t for the life of me understand how that experience adds a single qualification needed to be POTUS. No one has ever explained how crashing a plane and being a victim of a war makes one qualified to be a commander in chief.
It certainly didn’t add to his character. We all can cite a long list of character flaws. It didn’t make him against torture if that stance would get in the way of walking lock-step with bush. And no deeply-held conviction of right and wrong will keep him from taking whatever stance is needed to ensure he has increased chances of victory. Need negative? You got it! Need positive? You got it. The only question McCain always asks is: what opinion, what deeply-held conviction do you need me to hold in order to ensure your vote for me.
I think the new tone of McCain’s candidacy is one of desperation and seeing the handwriting on the wall. But, worst-case scenario is McCain is elected. He has proven to quite malleable so that’s not bad for the worst that can happen.
Excuse me, but do you folks at the Eagle ever go back and look at history, before you write this stuff?
When did the “Willie Horton” ads run?
When did the “Swift Boat” ads run?
July and August are, historically, the time to run heavy negative advertising.
Especially when an unknown, green novice like Obama is involved.
Obama has a very thin record, with few recorded votes. Obama can not be allowed to to talk his way out of his inexperience.
Paul, are you endorsing Obama now that he has criticized Ludacris’ lyrics?
Linda
What has Obama done, that qualifies Obama, in any way, to be the President of the United States?
What, in Obama’s past, is unique?
What, in Obama’s past, shows Obama’s true character?
Franklin, I have posted many times why I support Obama for our next president. I don’t see you changing your opinions no matter how many words I type or how many times I type them. So, probably our best course of action is to both vote for the candidate of our choice. That’s the path I plan to take. You will, of course, choose your own path. I don’t expect our paths to cross!
Franklin,
What bills has McCain proposed/sponsored/co-sponsored that you are proud of?
Linda,
What bills has Obama proposed/sponsored/co-sponsored that you are proud of?
Linda
You speak in flowery words, much like your empty suit candidate: Obama!
You can not think of anything Obama has done that has not been done by millions of other Americans, can you?
Instead, you attack McCain, claiming that McCain’s truly unique and heroic past do not qualify McCain to be President.
Ok, I have accepted your basic premise.
Now, tell us all, PLEASE, what past experiences DO qualify someone to be President?
Obama is the most inexperienced person to ever be nominated by a major political party.
Sol Dev
McCain was very wrong on campaign finance.
McCain was wrong on immigration, but seems to have learned his lesson.
McCain is wrong on “global warming” —
However, McCain is an honorable man who will not put our country at risk. On national defense and security issues, he is head and shoulders better than Obama.
— Let me save Linda some time:
Pretty much the ONLY piece of legislation Obama has sponsored, in the United States Senate, was a bill to reverse the Lieberman/Kyle Amendment.
Obama could not get anyone else to co-sponsor his Bill. He is the only supporter of that Bill.
Obama’s Bill was written immideately after Obama met with radical Islamic leaders.
Obama’s Bill gave Iran everything Iran wanted.
Unique and heroic past?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAHAHA
Huuuuuuuuugh
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA
I guess he was the only POW in Nam. What part of 5 years of torture makes a person viable for the white house? What part of that makes him heroic? IMHO that is a detriment to McCain. There are folks that I know that served one tour and are really messed up in the head. They weren’t tortured for 5 years. What the hell must that do to your head? McCain is dangerous.
What has McCain done, in his Senatorial career that you are proud of?
McCain is an honorable man who will not put our country at risk.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAHAHA
Huuuuuuuuugh
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA
Bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran. Yup. Give me a warm fuzzy. Indefinite stay in Iraq? Why do you think the Iraqis are pissed? BECAUSE WE ARE THERE
Other than bombing Iran and staying in Iraq forever, what is his foreign policy? How will he make America safe? Seems to have learned his lesson on Amnesty? That is a monstrous flip flop and you cheer lead for him? Pathetic.
Franklin, I’ve tried to have conversations with you. I’m a quick learner!
Sol,
Here’s a link to the Illinois General Assembly and a listing of all bills Obama was a sponsor on:
http://www.ilga.gov/senate/SenatorBills.asp?MemberID=747&GA=93
I think Obama’s political philosophy and mine are similar, not always a match, but similar.
I know you are aware that the first two years he was a United States Senator he was in the minority party and little was done by anyone — including those in the majority.
His resume is short but he is smart enough to make up for deficits. I certainly don’t see “experience” as being a for sure positive. It all depends on what the experience was and what you did with it!
Of course I will criticize McCain! He isn’t my choice. I am, however, mature enough not to feel a need to criticize those who have chosen him as their preferred candidate. See Franklin’s posts for that kind of behavior.
I know for sure I would prefer giving him the chance over the proven record of McCain to follow the failed policies of bush. Isn’t that how we all cast our votes — the one that more closely meets most of our political philosophies? Here is a link to his stated policy issues, which I agree with btw.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/
As if words I type or links I provide will make any difference to anyone here. We’re all just spinning circles, but keeps us off the streets and out of trouble, I guess. ;-)
One of the men running on the tickets of the two major parties will be the next president. I see this election as pretty much a win — win for a person with my political opinions. ANYTHING and ANYONE will be an improvement over what we’ve got!
John McCain is not winning new supporters.
Barack Obama is losing old ones.
This Democrat is still hoping for an….interesting convention.
Obama is the Rohrshock candidate.
Obama is what his supporters believe him to be, in their own minds, as far as his supporters are concerned.
Obama can contradict himself, ever day.
It does not matter.
Obama’s supporters ignore anything that goes against what they WANT to hear or see.
Don’t see much support for McCain from Franklin, just smears against Obama. Kinda like McCain’s ads.
Seems quit telling, there isn’t much to be proud of in McCain.
McCain is NOT Obama.
In this election, that should be enough.
Franklin, I’m not quite sure what kind of experience that Sen. Obama lacks; but for what it is worth, I’d suggest Ulysses S. Grant and Herbert Hoover for two had less experience than Sen. Obama. Since you qualified your remark by saying major party, I’ll exclude Abraham Lincoln, as I’m not quite sure the Republican Party was a “major party” by 1860.
SolDevVB,
I have never hiden my dislike for McCain. However, he is the much lesser of two evils and I will be supporting him.
Hi Vaughn!
He’s not the other guy. How pathetic that this is the GOP offering. Not really anything you can get behind other than “He’s not the other guy”
How can y’all stand remianing with the GOP when this mummified liberal flip flopping plane crasher is the best the GOP can offer?
Hi, back Linda. Hank; thank you as well, if you are reading here (yes, too lazy to post on the Open Thread).
Adding to my list: Jimmy Carter also had “less experience” than Sen. Obama, as I recall.
SolDevVB,
Because I will still get some of the issues I support and a whole lot less of the ones I don’t by supporting McCain.
It is called politics.
Vaughn,
Good to see you again. And wouldn’t George W. Bush be on your list, too. How long was Kennedy in the senate?
In his recent book, Scott McClellan admits that due to the Texas constitution the Governor’s office in that state does not have much power and one has to reach across the aisle to have any chance of accomplishing much of anything.
What issues Nat?
Steven, thanks. My not including the current President on my list was out of caution, not knowing how long the term of a Texas governor is, and my confusion over what “experience” Franklin thinks is relevant. If total time in elected public office is what he’s going after, it seems to me that President Reagan might also qualify. I forgot to mention President Eisenhower, who to my memory held no elective office prior to the Presidency.
Picking between the lesser of two evils is still chosing evil
Nathan Bob Barr has a infinitely higher rating on gun issues than McCain who has supported gun restriction in the past.
Kennedy had 3 terms as a congressman and a senate term
Reagan and Carter were both Govs
What kind of experience are we looking for?
neither one have worked at a blue collar job, owned a business, ran a company.
Its odd that conservatives who dislike the government have a candidate who his entire live has only worked for the government.
Yup, as predicted, Hillary Clinton’s nasty, negative campaigning has come back to hurt the duly-elected nominee.
Some people put party before winning. A candidate who can add the numbers and see she couldn’t win would have dropped out for the good of the party.
And that’s why Hillary didn’t, because she doesn’t give a sh!t about the party.
The fact that Obama hasn’t spent much time in Washington is his biggest asset, IMHO.
If you want “experience,” then Nixon should have been our best president ever.
Uhhh . . . yeah . . . how’d that go?
“CapnAmerica” notes –
“The fact that Obama hasn’t spent much time in Washington is his biggest asset….”
Especially when your consider the “experience” of (The Big) Dick Cheney, and the “experience” of Donald Rumsfeld, and the “experience” of Colin(oscopy) Powell, and the “experience” of Alberto Gon… Gonz… (sorry, I don’t recall his name), the “experience” of all those 4-star generals who were fired just because the disagreed with the NeoCONs’ obsession to invade Iraq, the “experience” of John Sidney McCain the Third (for Shrub’s 3rd term) which has led him to champion torture (now that they can’t torture him anymore)….
But, of course, McC*nt says he “doesn’t want to talk about his POW experience” — except in EVERY GADDAMN COMMERCIAL HE RUNS!
What, exactly, is the Presidential wisdom learned from crashing FIVE fighter aircraft in a short career as what his contemporaries describe as “a reckless” pilot?
Ooooh. That’s the kind of “experience” I want in control of the Red Button!
Yeah, that’s what we need: a rebellious “maverick” who can’t, in his dotage, quite recall just who the enemy is in Iraq. A guy, y’know, with experience of bailing out his most important political donor (Keating) and who (most likely due to his “experience”) has gone on the record as being both for-and-against tax increases, both for-and-against Shrub’s War policies, both for-and-against campaign finance reform, both for-and-against immigration amnesty, both for-and-against focusing the War On Terror where (y’know) the TERRORISTS are…?!
The American people have experienced for nearly eight years what happens when the Republic Party is in power.
Did anyone tell mccain, bush is ready to cut tours? The number of troops will be determined by condition on the ground. The political ground!
No Capn. I think the most experienced Candidate was probably James Buchanan. The worst President. Even worse than Dubya.
Now there was this other man named Abraham Lincoln. Not a very experienced candidate. 8 years in the Illinois legislature, maybe one term as a Congressmen. Not much more political experience than that.
Correct me if these facts are wrong.
“Some people put party before winning. A candidate who can add the numbers and see she couldn’t win would have dropped out for the good of the party.
And that’s why Hillary didn’t, because she doesn’t give a sh!t about the party.”
Capn? Senator Clinton didn’t HAVE to drop out at all.
In fact, I am one of no small number of people who wish she had not and STILL hope for an interesting convention.
I don’t remember the last time I heard Saint Barack even SOUND like a Democrat anymore.
That aint Senator Clinton’s fault.
Tom,
True, but again, it is about politics. I will vote for the cnadidate who not only represents my views more, but also has a chance of actually making it.
Your article is totally gripping. Great work!!