PDA

View Full Version : Late Breaking: Obama Flies Southwest!


nikkibong
10-08-2008, 08:16 PM
As Drudge puts it: REPORTER SHOCK CLAIM: OBAMA AIRPLANE SMELLS BAD;


Here's the link:

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/10/07/politics/fromtheroad/entry4507703.shtml

TwinSwords
10-08-2008, 08:52 PM
Interesting story. Sounds like an unhappy reporter. I have to give him credit, though, for admitting that the press will slant its coverage to retaliate against Obama; that's the kind of honest reporting we can believe in, my friends.

uncle ebeneezer
10-09-2008, 02:41 PM
Kinda hard for me to take seriously anyone who says:

It was an important, aggressive speech, lambasting Obama's past associations.

Yeah, that's really important, dude. I have a college degree and can't get a job (or even a decent interview). My buddy had to bury several of his friends in Iraq (and worries about being sent back), but let's talk about Bill Ayers because that's what's important.

TwinSwords
10-09-2008, 04:58 PM
Yeah, that's really important, dude. I have a college degree and can't get a job (or even a decent interview). My buddy had to bury several of his friends in Iraq (and worries about being sent back), but let's talk about Bill Ayers because that's what's important.

It's just depressing.

How did we arrive at this point? The "greatest country in the world" has a media that produces on average drivel no better and quite often worse than that Drudge-report pimped crap which nikkibong dragged back here.

His plane stinks. Well by all means, let's vote to continue torture and economic collapse.

Dow down 650 points today, and our media wants us to know Obama's plane stinks and that talking about Ayers is "important."

Oh well. I guess if I was a massive effing loser, I'd write stories like that too.

Thanks Republicans!

uncle ebeneezer
10-10-2008, 01:45 AM
I hear ya.

If McCain had any honor whatsoever, he would come out and admit that he doesn't believe any of the Bill Ayers/terrorist bullshit and he would soundly condemn anyone who tried to holler death threats etc., and remind people that there is no place for that in politics. Sadly, I just saw a video at a town-hall meeting where some rube stands up and yells "we're angry that nobody's talking about the people this guy (Obama) hangs around with. When are you gonna hammer this point home?" This would have been a perfect time to say "Look I don't care who Obama served on some commitee with, as they say 'politics make strange bedfellows', what frightens me is Obama's policies. They are wrong, and here is why..."

But instead he promised that he will hammer the point home. Ugh...I don't care how many years he spent in a prison camp, at this point McCain has lost ANY honor that was ever associated with his name. Utterly disgraceful.

I played tennis today with a guy in his late 50's who has always been an Independent and as he said (to paraphrase): "You know McCain always struck me as my kinda guy. The kinda guy who didn't really follow party lines and wasn't afraid to do what he thought was right. But this election has shown me that not only is he just like all the 'politicians' he rails against, but he's actually WORSE than them because he hood-winked everyone with this 'Maverick' bullshit. It's just plain pathetic."

bjkeefe
10-23-2008, 02:13 AM
I played tennis today with a guy in his late 50's who has always been an Independent and as he said (to paraphrase): "You know McCain always struck me as my kinda guy. The kinda guy who didn't really follow party lines and wasn't afraid to do what he thought was right. But this election has shown me that not only is he just like all the 'politicians' he rails against, but he's actually WORSE than them because he hood-winked everyone with this 'Maverick' bullshit. It's just plain pathetic."

Always glad to hear someone else see the light.

A friend recently asked by email:

Also, what do you think happened to McCain? Did he become a prisoner of his campaign handlers? Did he just get too worn out to run an effective campaign? It does seems like the decisions he did make on his own (like suspending his campaign to fly back to DC and save the country) reveal a recklessness and a tendency to go off half-cocked that was probably there all the time, but he seemed a little more reasonable (or at least coherent) back in 2000.

My answer:

I have long viewed him as a phony, as self-serving as any standard-issue politician. I am ecstatic that so many of his fans in the MSM have finally woken up to this. This is one of the good parts about the ridiculous length and media obsession with the horse race -- McCain ultimately could not skate by on his image and stunts alone.

I don't think McCain is a prisoner of his campaign handlers. I think he cares only about winning, that this has always been so, and that he is fully responsible for the strategy and tactics on display. I could concede that he is somewhat bound by the realities of the wingnut branch of the GOP and the clout that they possess, and grant that he does not share the views of the theocrats, but on the other hand, he chose to stick with that party, knowing full well what those realities were. He could, for example, have insisted on his little buddy Lieberman for his running mate if he truly had principles. But he didn't -- he went with what he thought gave him the best chance of winning an election.

More importantly, he had a plenty of opportunity to build off the moves he had made in 2000, but he tossed that chance aside. He did a few mavericky stunts for the cameras, like speaking out once against Bush's first round of tax cuts and mouthing a few platitudes about torture, but the overwhelming bulk of his actions since 2000 have been to embrace Bush and the hardline GOP platform. Plus, he's never been anything but an unapologetic neocon in his foreign policy views.

I also think McCain showed in this campaign the same sort of "it's my turn, dammit, I've paid all the dues" sense of entitlement that Bob Dole displayed in 1996. And to my mind, he has always been a politician who paid more attention to the perception that he was doing things, rather than actually just doing them.

I share *some* of your sense that his age has been a handicap. I think he gives all he has to the public and media appearances he makes, and has no energy left for hard thought about policy or campaign strategy and management.

However, I have never thought there was anything of substance to his policy proposals. As one telling example, his web site's section on the issues looks like it was assembled by someone who copied and pasted Obama's, and then went through it, deleting and amending the parts that wouldn't fly for a Republican candidate, and filling in the gaps with a bunch of vacuous boilerplate about "honor" and "commitment" and "I will fight for."

So, I'm not sure that his age explains all of this. As I have already indicated, I have long thought McCain was someone who has got through life much in the way George Bush has -- trading on his name, his family connections, and one made-for-TV moment in the distant past, and showing since then a lot of intellectual laziness and distaste for the nitty-gritty of actual governance.

I don't share your sense that McCain is that unhappy about the way his campaign has evolved. I'm sure he's completely pissed that he's losing to "that one," but apart from the obvious -- that he would have liked to have been coronated by the MSM and not had to do any real work to be elected -- my sense of McCain is that he has always been an amoral snake, willing to take a cheap shot whenever it seemed like it would gain him an advantage. To the extent that he has regrets about the more unsavory aspects of his campaign, I'm sure it has more to do with them not working than their nature. To the extent that he walks things back over the next two weeks, or chooses not to indulge in, say, trying to make Jeremiah Wright an issue again, I see it more as him cutting his losses to preserve what little of his image that he has left than anything else.

If you read some of the stuff that takes a hard look at his past, this sense I have of McCain becomes apparent. See, for example:

http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2008/10/highly-recommended-reading.html
http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2008/09/damned-liberal-media-printing-facts.html
http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2008/09/its-not-crime-its-cover-up.html
http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2008/08/arizona-angle.html

The final proof lies in how he started conducting himself once he ran out of effective media stunts (like the Palin pick). Things like his choice to hire Rove acolyte Steve Schmidt and the same robocalling firm that killed him in South Carolina in 2000 again say to me that the only thing he cares about is winning, and that all his talk of "putting country first" is just empty sloganeering.

Finally, I share with you the belief that recklessness is a hallmark of his personality. I think this has always been the case (see above reading recommendations). The difference now is that the consequences of his recklessness are much more apparent. It's one thing to be Johnny the Maverick or Angry Johnny in the Senate, where you've got the dampening effect of the other 99 votes, not to mention media coverage that starts from the point of view that your actions don't matter so much as long as they entertain. It's another thing entirely to be the one guy in charge when rolling the dice is the only way you know how to proceed. Once again, the length of the campaign might have saved us from disaster: we've had six months to watch McCain meltdowns, while watching Obama for 12 or 18 never once coming close.

Doubtful Avenger
10-24-2008, 12:49 PM
McCain, beginning with the Palin thing, went risky in his campaign. He had no choice, he was staring at 273 electoral points already in Obama's camp. So he picked Palin and started the other stuff we have seen. I don't see how that's going to work, but I think that's the reason. I think the odds are we will see over 350 for Obama now. However, I have no good feeling about his policy positions, either. He has shown only a tendency to obfuscate his huge tax increases, calling them cuts, for God's sake, and to want to expand social policy and the welfare state - not a particularly good time to do that, if we ever want to recover, create jobs, and reduce the deficit.
Alas, left with no choices, we get this guy who is smooth but from a depth of analysis perspective, as thin as pee on a plate.
I can hardly wait for the 60% + marginal tax rate! From all the remarks I see here, I assume you don't have to worry about it.

AemJeff
10-24-2008, 01:16 PM
McCain, beginning with the Palin thing, went risky in his campaign. He had no choice, he was staring at 273 electoral points already in Obama's camp. So he picked Palin and started the other stuff we have seen. I don't see how that's going to work, but I think that's the reason. I think the odds are we will see over 350 for Obama now. However, I have no good feeling about his policy positions, either. He has shown only a tendency to obfuscate his huge tax increases, calling them cuts, for God's sake, and to want to expand social policy and the welfare state - not a particularly good time to do that, if we ever want to recover, create jobs, and reduce the deficit.
Alas, left with no choices, we get this guy who is smooth but from a depth of analysis perspective, as thin as pee on a plate.
I can hardly wait for the 60% + marginal tax rate! From all the remarks I see here, I assume you don't have to worry about it.

Basing all of your projections based on the work of hostile analysts produced during a hard-fought election probably isn't the best way to approximate the truth. I doubt that the scenarios cooked up by Republican critics will bear much resemblance to actual Obama policies, if he's elected.

bjkeefe
10-24-2008, 11:15 PM
McCain, beginning with the Palin thing, went risky in his campaign.

I buy that. In fact, if you look back through the archives to the day where Palin was announced, you'll see that I thought his choice was a good one (from his perspective) on that day.

This, of course, was before I had any inkling of the utter lack of vetting that had been done, not to mention the dreadful state of her unreadiness, lack of intellectual curiosity, and highly questionable history.

He [Obama] has shown only a tendency to obfuscate his huge tax increases, calling them cuts, for God's sake ...

That's a claim that is wholly at odds with his published proposals (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/fiscal/). Can you back it up? And (following AemJeff), with anything besides opinion pieces from rabid anti-Obama types? It seems to me that all you're doing here is all anyone vehemently opposed to Obama is doing -- expressing a worry (or attempting to spread FUD) that has no basis in reality.

Yes, Obama will raise taxes on those who make a lot of money. By a small percentage. There is no evidence of anything beyond that.

... and to want to expand social policy and the welfare state - not a particularly good time to do that, if we ever want to recover, create jobs, and reduce the deficit.

I'd need to hear more specifics, but there's a good case to be made, for example, that providing something close to national health insurance is an investment that will save money over the long term. I'd also say that most of the rest of his spending proposals are designed to create jobs.

Alas, left with no choices, we get this guy who is smooth but from a depth of analysis perspective, as thin as pee on a plate.

Remarks like this don't make me respect your point of view, if that matters to you.

I can hardly wait for the 60% + marginal tax rate! From all the remarks I see here, I assume you don't have to worry about it.

Yeah, I don't worry. I'm in the reality-based community. I don't make shit up just to have something to fret about.

Again, I challenge you to show me any evidence that Obama is going to, or even wants to, raise taxes to anything near this extent.