RECENT POSTS
- An Obama Thanksgiving Menu, with an Extra Serving of Pie
- White House Thanksgiving Traditions: Broken and Observed
- Obama, GOP Air Differences Over Jobs, Economy In Thanksgiving Addresses
- White House State Dinner Party Crashers
- Obama to Lay Out Emissions Goals in Copenhagen
- Free Bird
- The "Good" War
- The Presidential Planner
- Under the Stars, Obama Toasts India’s Prime Minister
- White House State Dinner – Who Made the Exclusive Guest List?
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
McCain Attacks Obama on Perceived J-town Shift
June 06, 2008 7:54 PM
As we covered last night, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, is being perceived as shifting on his policy on whether Jerusalem should be the "undivided" capital of Israel. He told a pro-Israel lobby that he believed in Jerusalem as the undivided capital, but later told CNN that its status would ultimately be up to Israel and Palestinians during peace negotiations. His campaign says there's no inconsistency at all.
Today, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., was asked his position on whether Jerusalem should be the undivided capital of Israel, and for a reaction to Senator Obama's remarks on that subject this week.
"I can't react to every comment that Senator Obama makes, because it probably will change as it did on sitting down and talking unconditionally with (Iranian president Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad and other dictators," McCain said. "But the point is, Jerusalem is undivided. Jerusalem is the capital. And we should move our embassy to Jerusalem before anything else happens. The subject of Jerusalem itself will be addressed in negotiations by the Israeli government and people."
You can watch McCain make his comments HERE.
- jpt
June 6, 2008 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (95)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
1. Obama was for talking to dictators unconditionally before he was against talking to them unconditionally.
2. Obama was for hardworking PA voters before he was against bitter PA voters.
3. Obama was against disowning Rev. Wright before he was for disowning Rev. Wright.
4. Obama was for not hearing evil sermons of Rev. Wright before he was for hearing Wright sermons.
5. Obama is for Hamas before he was against Hamas.
6. Obama is for terrorists like Ayers before he was against them.
7. Obama is for "against Americe" before he was for America.
Poltician Obama is a nimble one.
Posted by: Roger Miller | Jun 7, 2008 3:49:00 AM
You can take any Obama policy and position and see the complete changes throughout this campaign....Is he still for driver licenses for illegasl? He was in the CA debate....but before he needed the Hispanic vote he was attacking Hillary for not rejecting the drivers license idea in an earlier debate.
Obama has become an even greater motivational speaker throughout this campaign....but is policies and positions are all over the place...developed to pander to voting blocks all over the country.
Posted by: Jackie | Jun 7, 2008 3:45:09 AM
hi WCM.. we don't need another 4 years of bush or mc'can't policy. this country needs hillary, and they need her now. i have been to denver in recent days, and she is all they talk about....she is the pillar of strength that the dem party has to hold on to.
damn havent the DNC screwed us over enough????? damn the bad luck....time for a change....hillary for solutions.....
Posted by: carlasue | Jun 7, 2008 2:59:17 AM
These two bozos are class acts. Are you people really going to elect one of these yokels as President. Ralph Nader is actually starting to look like a serious contender compared to these monkeys.
========================================
No more years, no more years!
========================================
Posted by: WestCoastMessenger | Jun 7, 2008 2:18:17 AM
anon the exact words of my mothers ancestors the jicarilla apaches when your ancestors arrived.
my father's ancestors were mexican/spanish here before new mexico was even a territory of the u.s.
my mother was jicarilla apache here forever. we are as old as the earth.
Posted by: sonia trevino | Jun 7, 2008 1:49:43 AM
McCain's policy on illegal
immigration from Mexico:
Come one, come all, rats
and locusts, and overun
the USA so we'll all be
forced to live on Third
World paychecks.
Posted by: anon | Jun 7, 2008 1:38:54 AM
i will never agree with every single position that a candidate may promote however mr mccain has gained my respect on some issues. take immigration where he has consistently advocated for a moderate and humane agenda knowing full well that it would cost him the support of the 'foaming at the mouth racists' he risked alienating a large number of republicans and he did. i admire the fact that he did not parade his son returning from iraq as he was announcing his intent to enter this election. i voted for hillary but as a hispanic i will absolutely have no problem supporting mccain. obama on the other hand totally disregarded us hispanics in his 'race in america' agenda he portrayed this nation as black and white forgetting the largest minority group in america. we won't forget. but we will, remember in november. and no please do not throe us a bone (richardson the carpetbagger traitor) that would be an even bigger insult.
Posted by: sonia trevino | Jun 7, 2008 1:05:11 AM
obama is a push-over. He only needs a little push and totally change his positions. His big and muscular wife always walked in front of him. obama is the weakest along hillary and mccain; and of course his wife as well. this guy is a total dork (for ex had his shirt tuck in while play basketball) and probably don't even understand why people see him as a rock star.
Posted by: hannah | Jun 7, 2008 12:55:16 AM
By the way, Sonia (or anyone else for that matter), I'm not asking you to vote for anyone. No politician is always right (or wrong). It looks silly when we always support (or denigrate) a candidate; when we don't acknowledge that our preferred candidate is wrong (or the opposing candidate is right) then our opinion should be suspect.
Posted by: MIguy | Jun 7, 2008 12:47:37 AM
Mccain needs to go and see a shrink. What is the difference please? On jerusalem he will stand but at the same time it definitely has to be resolved by the Israelis and the Palestinians. Do you think it is America that will decide it? American can only lend their support to that idea. Mccain is really, really too old. I thought that age will not be a factor for him but I have been consistently proved wrong.
Posted by: jayjay | Jun 7, 2008 12:43:45 AM
@sonia: Okay, by your logic here are the possibilities:
1. McCain is right on his stance.
2. McCain is wrong on his stance.
3. We don't know Obama's stance.
So McCain is "putting his cards on the table." Okay, clearly he is pandering for the Jewish vote but that notwithstanding, what if he is wrong? The options then become:
1. McCain is wrong
2. 50% chance (or any chance except 100%) Obama is wrong
Any statistician or gambler will choose #2 every time. The converse, if McCain is right is:
1. McCain is right
2. 50% chance Obama is right
Then you choose #1 every time. So, this is a long-winded way of saying that it matters whether McCain is right or wrong on the issue (even in the absence of knowing Obama's position). I don't think McCain is right on this one - what do you think? Should we move our embassy to Jerusalem?
Posted by: MIguy | Jun 7, 2008 12:39:18 AM
Israel should have been carved
out of Germany. They suffered
the most at the hands of the
Nazis.
Allies of World War II created
it arbitrarily by chiseling it
out of Palestine.
It seems that historically
Jews were always minorities in
lands ruled by others including
the Middle East and had no
country of their own except in fictional works like the Bible.
Posted by: anon | Jun 7, 2008 12:37:19 AM
Obama is an enemy to Israel, just ask his pro Palestinian friends. The ones he's kept in the closet until he gets elected. Unfortuantely for Obama, there are pictures. And video.
Posted by: Jo | Jun 7, 2008 12:30:11 AM
The guy who mentioned all of Obama's flip flops forgot to mention that questionaire that was filled out where Obama advocated a total gun ban. When asked about it he said he never saw that. When they proved his handwriting was on it, he said he never saw that question.
This guy is so slick he makes Bill Clinton look like Mr. Rogers Neighborhood.
Posted by: Jo | Jun 7, 2008 12:28:49 AM
MIguy i understand the sensitivity of this issue very well. however the topic is the fact that obama changes his tune on this serious issue depending on whom he is addressing. thus is appears that he is willing to compromise anything to get the american jewish vote-anything? think about it. at least mccain is putting his cards on the table. but obama who knows? that does bother me.
Posted by: sonia trevino | Jun 7, 2008 12:22:46 AM
@katrina: Exactly - it's a foolhardy maneuver that even Bush wasn't dumb enough to do. Let's see, how do we pour fuel on the fire? Move our embassy to Jerusalem, support a "Berlin Wall" in Israel, and put our soldiers on the land of their holiest places (perhaps indefinitely). McCain is sure sounding like a foreign policy genius.
Posted by: MIguy | Jun 7, 2008 12:21:10 AM
We don't need anymore cowboy approaches in the middle east, which is clearly the case with moving the embassy to Jerusalem.
Posted by: katrina | Jun 7, 2008 12:16:58 AM
Actually, Sonia, what McCain said is scarier than anything Obama is saying. Read his quote again - I watched the video and they quoted him directly.
What exactly does he mean when he says that we should move our embassy "before anything else happens"? And he says that "The subject of Jerusalem itself will be addressed in negotiations by the Israeli government and people." That's right "and people" - well, which people?
What do you think will happen if the U.S. moves its embassy to Jerusalem? No other nation in the world has recognized Jerusalem as the capitol of Israel, save Israel itself. So, this is how we are going to be an honest broker there? This is how McCain is going to lead?
Posted by: MIguy | Jun 7, 2008 12:09:58 AM
The Hillary Clinton supporters I know say they will vote McCain. But if asked/confronted by Obamatized supporters they will say him for sake of argument. So far Obama has failed to give Substantial Qualifications besides he's 1/2 Kenyan Black as a qualifier. American doesn't need a Trainer-In- Chief. We went thru that the last 8 years. Look where we are at!
Posted by: InsideInfo | Jun 7, 2008 12:03:44 AM
the topic is obama's flip flopping within the span of a few hours on the issue of jerusalem. mccain has consistently advocated for an undivided jerusalem. obama, well,it depends on who is in the audience.
Posted by: sonia trevino | Jun 6, 2008 11:59:26 PM
Post a comment


