Obama Says John McCain of 2000 Would Not Approve of 2008 Incarnation, Praises Iowans for Vindicating his Faith

Erika,

Get used to it. This has happened to several of my posts as well. While I have not seen a single complaint from an Obama supporter about their posts being deleted, it is happening to McCain supporters left and right. It has happened to me at least twice -- and it seems to happen when I give my best and most complete arguments against Obama.

As we've seen Obama booting reporters off his plane and the Dems talking "Fairness Doctrine," and Obama hacks devotedly sabbotaging radio broadcasts, I am honestly concerned for the future of free speech. Apparently this website is not.

Several weeks ago Tapper acknowledged the complaints of deletions, and explained that a third party manages the message board. I guess ABC feels that exonerates them, even though it is their website and their perogative to hire/fire this third party.

I have even emailed ABC and received no response whatsoever. People can scoff at me if they want, but I feel I've been given a small taste of totalitarianism. It feels quite alarming and helpless when your speech is cut off -- I really hope that Obama will not suppress speech the way it appears he might. And I certainly hope ABC will take a stronger stance on this issue.

I would like to know what was objectionable about my post today at 1:50:07 p.m. that it was removed. It contains no links nor offensive language. It covered the fact that the sub-prime housing mess was partially caused by Congress, and that people haven’t been informed on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s public and private nature. It also mentioned that “negative” campaigning is simply how we find out anything about the candidates, since they won’t volunteer the information, and that Obama frequently talks of McCain, and his comments are almost always “negative.” Then it discusses the tapes surfacing this week in which Obama talked about the Constitution and “redistributive change.” Through his own statements, it showed that he favored it, but just didn’t think it would work through the courts because of the Constitution. It also shows through his comments that he spoke of possibly interpreting the Constitution as no court, including the Warren Court, has ever interpreted it, when he talks about “at least as it’s been interpreted.”

moderate

I'll take your point on the generalizing...... altho' I just find that Liddy Dole ad the worst of the worst..... Dole and the ad reflect something destructive and hateful. If she can't win on the issues, accept a possible defeat in an election with some grace.

E. Green, you wrote:

"You forget. Bush, the Republican, had the power of veto which he used against the Democrats.”

All I’m saying is that the economic crisis just didn’t come about because of Wall St., capitalism and Republican policies. And the Democrats had a big hand in the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac crisis, perhaps a bigger one than Republicans but certainly no smaller, but the public just hasn’t heard that. Just because there’s an election doesn’t mean some things shouldn’t be reported. ALL of Congress and the President had the responsibility of watching over FM and FM. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were not ordinary businesses, like Bear Sterns, Merrill Lynch, or Countrywide, they had a government side, like NASA and FEMA (which are wholly government). They were a mix. That’s why our politicians had a very, very direct role to play. And alarm bells were going off for years. Read the editorial I mentioned that says Dodd and Frank (Democrats) should resign, which talks of some of this. Is there any explanation of why the media hasn’t talked about the government side of the failure, holding our politicans who were responsible accountable, or even just mentioning that they had the responsibility? I don’t think the public has been educated about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

“And.... McCain, Republican, agreed with Bush 90% of the time."

If I believed that the Democrats were better leaders, I’d vote for them.

“You also forget that the media had catered to McCain long before Obama came along."

I don't know how much the media actually catered to him. They may have liked it that he seemed less Republican than other Republicans on some things. But now they seem to have found someone they like much better.

"McCain has run a very negative campaign. He has consistently repeated lies concerning Obama, even after they had been proven false. He contantly repeats gossip from gutter websites, not carng whether the garage was true or not."

On Bill Moyers’ PBS show, there’s a frequent liberal commentator on the campaign and in my view she’s not unbiased, but she has pointed out that negative talk and “attacks” aren’t wrong. They’re part of democracy. Leaders in undemocratic countries suppress all unfavorable information. Here, Obama and McCain aren’t going to criticize themselves. They also aren’t going to report negative information on themselves. Criticism may be tough, but it’s not unhealthy, and it’s up to the media and the opposing candidate to bring up what the candidate himself won’t. And how many times has Obama said something about McCain that wasn’t positive, and in place of just talking positively about his own plans and beliefs? Should he stop saying that McCain is like Bush, even saying that McCain dresses up like Bush for Halloween, because that’s negative? And that it’s negative is undeniable. Or should he stop saying that he thinks Republicans divide America? That’s negative. Obama frequently mentioned McCain and Republicans, and what he says is rarely positive. It doesn’t just count as “negative” when the negative is about Obama, does it?

I’ve also looked into many of the claims that McCain has made against Obama, as well as many other troubling things about Obama that the campaign hasn’t mentioned. McCain has had to mention some of these things because the media, which should talk about them, hasn’t. And whenever something unfavorable about Obama comes to light, Obama stonewalls and the media defends and covers up for him. For example, the tapes where Obama talked about the Constitution and redistribution of wealth. In them, he talked positively about achieving “redistributive change” through legislators, like Congress, and not the courts. “Maybe I’m showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor. I'm not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. The institution just isn’t structured that way." He also said it’s the Constitution that has hampered the Courts from bringing about that change (which was the problem the Civil Rights Movement encountered):

“But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent as radical as people tried to characterize the Warren court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can’t do to you, it says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn’t shifted.”

Obama was clearly for that radical reinterpretation of the Constitution which he mentions. The Warren Court, he said “didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted.” “At least as it’s been interpreted” is only how it has been interpreted by every court ever since it was written, up until this day. If some radical court used their imaginations, they might invent some things that aren’t there, but that isn’t what courts have done in all our country’s history. If you want the Constitution to change, the proper way to do is to see if you can amend it. Judges shouldn’t sneak in things that they personally believe should be in there.

"Blue," your brush is a bit too broad here.

You wrote that "all you have to do to really understand the depths to which republicans will sink to win is to listen to Liddy Dole's 'godless' ad ....Republicans are a sorry lot" Liddy Dole does not represent ALL Republicans any more than Jack Murtha or Al Franken represent ALL Democrats. Try to watch the unsubstantiated generalizations.

Ah, pefros, don't worry about me. I have not overlooked anything, despite your show of concern. You wrote: "
moderate for all your education, you overlooked the most important parts."

Then you trotted out your usual list: "Palin can not string together a complete sentence unless its scripted for her." You mean like the allegedly amazing orator, Sen. um um ah Obama? Sorry, we will agree to disagree here, I suppose. In just the past week, I have seen Sarah Palin speaking in interviews with everyone from Greta van Sustren (or however you spell her name) to 20/20, and she was articulate, humorous, and warm.

Then you toss out "Her depth of knowledge of world affairs is pitifully shallow." Really? Because Tina Fey created the "I can see Russia from my house" image? The actual Gov. Palin is not shallow in her knowledge base. Does she have the depth of knowledge of world affairs that McCain and Biden do? Not at this moment, but then, neither does Barack Obama. (He still needs someone to explain Columbia to him, as evidenced by his debate answers, and he botched his initial response to the Russian invasion of Georgia, for example) And deeper knowledge does not always trump superior instincts-- Biden knows a lot, or so they tell me, but much of what he knows is wrong. He voted against the FIRST Gulf War (the one to liberate Kuwait, remember?) and for the second Iraq War and wants to partition Iraq into three countries (hi, remember the balkans?) That's just how wrong-headed he was on a single country. There are plenty more. So at the BOTTOM of the ticket, not the top, I'll take Sarah's serviceable knowledge base and her world view and her good poltical instincts and her ability to learn from McCain and his advisors over Biden any day.

What next? "She is calculating and vindictive (see the Troopergate report)." Well, as often with such political 'scandals' there are multiple sides to this story and how one interprets the results of that report depends on how one views Gov. Palin going in, I think. I saw no vindictiveness. And funny, what is seen as 'astuteness' in a male politician is so often seen as 'calculation' in a female, just as 'cerebral' becomes 'cold' and 'ambitious' becomes 'grasping.' (Ask Hillary)

Then you manage to insult a whole bunch of folks, a la your candidate Sen. Barack "they cling to their guns and their religion" Obama, by writing: "
And of course, like Bush . . . she talks with 'God'." Um, I seem to recall that most of our presidents have been religious men who prayed regularly, considered worship an essential part of their lives, and were not ashamed to call upon God for guidance and support. FDR led the nation in prayer during WWII, I have a dim recollection from my history classes. Jimmy Carter was one of our most openly religious presidents. What on earth is wrong about "talking with God." And why on earth did you write "God" in quotation marks? Ah, well.

Your conclusion: "Another dangerous extremist in a 'folksy' package." Sorry, she's not an extremist and there's nothing wrong with what you continue to demean as "folksy" but what I consider "having the common touch" and "down to earth," a la Ronald Reagan.

Erike,

You forget. Bush, the Republican, had the power of veto which he used against the Democrats. And.... McCain, Republican, agreed with Bush 90% of the time. You also forget that the media had catered to McCain long before Obama came along. McCain has run a very negative campaign. He has consistently repeated lies concerning Obama, even after they had been proven false. He contantly repeats gossip from gutter websites, not carng whether the garage was true or not. Obama has defended himself and McCain calls foul.

Maybe the media got tired of McCain/Palin lies and distortions of the truth. I don't want consummate liars in the highest office of our country and representing us in the world.

McCain didn’t take the low road. The media and Obama have just been saying that as often as they can get away with it. If anything, I think he and his campaign should seriously be faulted for not pressing hard enough for all the facts to be heard.

The Pew Research Center found that 70% of the public sees the media as pulling for Obama (“Most Voters Say News Media Wants Obama to Win”). That poll typically finds more Americans than not seeing a liberal bias in favor of Democrats in Presidential election coverage, but it’s an unusually high number.

The media has been an extension of Obama’s campaign. It’s as simple as that. There isn’t enough time or space here to even begin to list all the instances of biases. Here’s just one issue, to start: The $700 billion bailout. The sub-prime housing crisis was caused by business and government failures - Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac were “government-sponsored enterprises” - government-sponsored businesses. You only hear about the failure of the business side, though, not the one on the government end of it. If you think that government should be strict about regulating ordinary businesses, then you would doubly expect it to be Congress’ job to police these “GSE’s,” since they were part government to begin with. But you didn’t hear about that. It’s all about Reagan and Republicans and deregulation and Wall Street. But Democrats also didn’t want the gravy train of FM/FM stopped. Here’s some background on the government role in the crisis: “Who Caused the Economic Crisis?” (Factcheck), “Fannie Mae and the Vast Bipartisan Conspiracy,” (Slate), “How Washington Failed to Rein In Fannie, Freddie” (Washington Post). Those articles are each very informative, but their most basic facts should have been told in all the media. People heard far, far more about the probe into Sarah Palin firing Walter Monegan than they have about Congress’ failure to protect them, at a dollar cost of $700 billion. Congress has gotten away scott-free with its part in this mess because Congress includes Democrats, and the media reporting on its actions would ruin the Democrats’ ability to point their fingers at Republicans. The media cares so much about the public that it isn’t willing to let them hear about half the source of this crisis. A few other very informative articles: an editorial from the Providence (RI) Journal: “Dodd and Frank, step down.” Interestingly, Frank, who pushed hard for Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac, even when, the Journal editorial notes, it was clear that a crisis could be developing, now says, “We made a mistake as a society in promoting homeownership as a universal achievable goal,” (“Frank now calls homeownership emphasis 'a mistake,’” Belmont Citizen-Herald). And The Hartford Courant wrote this editorial, “If Not Now, When?” calling on Sen. Dodd to release documents related to loans he received from Countrywide Financial, which played a role in the sub-prime mess. When asked about releasing the documents, he said, "Not right now, no.” His aide said he’s gonna do it, sometime. Why so little coverage of all these things?

jrock - this doesn't answer your question, but relates to the Obama pro-Muslim rumors. One of the earliest places that the rumor was started was right here - before Obama had even announced his candidacy. Was it based on a paper Obama had written? A statement Obama had made? A vote? Nope, nope, and nope. It was based on something the Topper had read on an obscure website, which in turn was based on an alleged rumor, which in turn was based on an alleged dinner party conversation. No direct evidence - didn't even have to leave his office. Just drudge the web and find some slimy rumor - give it life - and it becomes fact. Remember real journalists? I really miss them.

oh jorock5, I hate to break it to you - but it is on the RNC website. The muslim/Obama rumor. They have broken a very, very shaky article into about 20 separate quotes (don't ask why) and put it right on their website. The article was based on a bottom feeder of the blogophere. Maybe THE bottom feeder - levels below Drudge. No evidence. No contacts. No interviews. Just whatever the blogger happened to think that day. A nice but obviously ethics-challeged LA Times reporter picked it up and voila! It is fact. Now it's in McCain speeches, Palin speeches, hate rallies and.... the RNC website. What a classy bunch. I hope they invite the bottom feeder to their next convention. As a keynote speaker - because that individual is a real representative of what the GOP has become.

Sen. Obama is a good man, with a positive, uplifting vision for the country. He speaks to our aspirations, our hopes and has an optimistic view of America, our promise and our great people. He understands the importance of waging the war on terror and defeating the terrorists who attacked on 9/11. He is pragmatic, competent and a strong leader. And I feel confident with him at the helm.

Unfortunately, as this post aludes to, there are too many versions of John McCain to count - the bottomline is they are all reckless, erratic and take any and all questioning as a personal affront (how dare anyone question a former POW?). He does not have the judgment, character or temperament to be president. We decided this in 2000; just because he decided to kow-tow to conservatives in 2008 (and believe me, we know better) does not make him prepared to lead now. The flip-flopping on just about all of his key issues makes us all wonder what he stands for anymore.

After running to be president for 10 years, he is now desperate and deceitful, feeling this very high position is something he "deserves." McCain's campaign has been nothing short of divisive and demeaning and wholly beneath the office he seeks. He has decided that winning an election is more important than his honor, and that's pathetic. Country first? Hardly.

My husband and I stood in line for 90 minutes today to vote early in Florida. We are republicans, and we voted PROUDLY for Sen. Obama!

moderate for all your education, you overlooked the most important parts.

Palin can not string together a complete sentence unless its scripted for her.

Her depth of knowledge of world affairs is pitifully shallow.

She is calculating and vindictive (see the Troopergate report).

And of course, like Bush . . . she talks with 'God'.

Another dangerous extremist in a 'folksy' package.

pefros, how many times are you gonna post your list of complaints about Sarah Palin's "folksiness"? (note that despite my multiple degrees, including the PhD, and my profession of teaching at a university, I still use the colloquial "gonna" in my everyday speech) Sorry that her style rubs you the wrong way. You compare her to Bush. Know who her style reminds me of? Ronald Reagan. He was an "aw shucks" kind of guy, too.

Sorry JG, McCain just doesn't look like a well or well-balanced man to me, and Palin is a joke as a VP pick. She's Bush II in female form:

* has difficulty stringing together a complete sentence if its not scripted for her
* the 'you betcha' - 'we gonna smoke him out' vocal mannerisms
* folksy down home image
* shallow breadth of world knowledge
* ambitious
* inarticulate
* calculating (see troopergate)
* vindictive (see troopergate)

When people first voted for Bush they thought he was folksy and down home, a washington outsider who wanted to make goverment smaller and get government out of the way of the people . . .

Surely, we don't have to buy that pap again in female form.

For those of you who are suggesting that McCain has somehow been honorably in that he's "left Rev. Wright alone," please consider the following:

1) He doesn't need to mention him. Wingnut PACS are running Rev. Wright ads in battleground states right now.

2) Perhaps he's smart enough to understand that Democratic PAC's could respond with some effective ads demonstrating that there isn't a dime's worth of difference between what Rev. Wright's said about America and what Palin's pastor's said.

Another ad could feature the wingnut who preached to her about Israel being attacked by terrorists because Jews refuse to convert to Christianity.

Yet another could show the witch doctor laying hands on her and mumbo-jumboing about keeping the witches away from her.

nevermind the uproar if Obama doesnt win, imagine the uproar of all the overzealous holier than though(but less holy than Obama) Imagine if Obnama doesnt have the money or decides to mderate on trying to bring in wholesale new programs but cuts existing ones and doesn bring the troops home but expands our troops use abroad... these ninis will come out of the woodwork

Prefros

yep its not important because you have been spouting he same nonsense for weeks

I know some of you don't think this is important, but to me John McCain does not look well physically, mentally or emotionally.

He looked dreadful during some of the debates - off balance and almost unhinged at times.

I will not be putting any of my fate into his hands.

And Sarah Palin has revealed herself as basically a soap opera character with little depth of intellect and a very one-dimensional, almost cartoon view of the world stage.

Again, I would not put any of my fate in her hands.

It's a pathetic Republican ticket.

8 years of Republicans was enough. The electorate will be rightfully booting the Republicans out of office.

Landslide Democratic win despite all the attempt to use smear tactics during the next few days.

Ah, Bob, you are entertaining, I'll give you that. I'll try to respond to your post directed to me, but I'm also in the midst of making phone calls for McCain, so it may take a while.

You wrote: "moderate, gotta hand it to ya, you're in the tank." One person's enthusiasm is another person's in the tank. You are equally in the tank for the other side, so I suppose we're even.

Then you launched your argument: "Some of McCain's flip-flops from Rolling Stone's "Make Believe Maverick":"-- Oh, golly, not the hardhitting, objective journalism of the Rolling Stone! Now I'm in for it. Sorry, but I've seen the RS hagiography of The Chosen One and I know of the strong cheerleading stance of the editor-- ranks right up there with Graydon Carter of Vanity Fair.

"In fact, his own statements show that he has been on both sides of a host of vital issues: the Bush tax cuts, the estate tax, waterboarding, hunting down terrorists in Pakistan, kicking Russia out of the G-8, a surge of troops into Afghanistan, the GI Bill, storing nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain, teaching intelligent design, fully funding No Child Left Behind, offshore drilling, his own immigration policy and withdrawal timelines for Iraq." For openers, there is flip-flopping, which is, as you suggest, being on both sides of an issue and changing for expediency's sake. Then there is having a position that evolves as circumstances change. I would, of course, argue that most of your "examples" are examples of the second, not the first-- when there is actually a change over time. Sometimes there isn't, despite what you and the Rolling Stone may think.

Let's see your specifics: "In March, McCain insisted to The Wall Street Journal that he is "always for less regulation." In September, with the government forced to bail out the nation's largest insurance companies and brokerage houses, McCain declared that he would regulate the financial industry and end the "casino culture on Wall Street."" Ah, the 'take it out of context' gambit. McCain is against excessive regulation that will stifle business unnecessarily. That is not the same as being against any form of regulation. He had called for tighter controls on Fannie and Freddie, for example, several years before they imploded and kicked off the current financial crisis. That is documented, as you well know.

Next example you cite: "He did a similar about-face on Bush's tax cuts, opposing them when he planned to run against Bush in 2001, then declaring that he wants to make them larger — and permanent — when he needed to win the support of anti-tax conservatives this year. "It's a big flip-flop," conceded tax abolitionist Grover Norquist. "But I'm happy he's flopped."" Yes, he did change his views on the tax cuts. Did he change because he wanted the support of "anti-tax conservatives" as you suggest? Or did he change because circumstances have changed and continuing the tax cuts is important in the current financial climate?

Then there is offshore drilling: "In June of this year, McCain reversed his decades-long opposition to coastal drilling — shortly before cashing $28,500 from 13 donors linked to Hess Oil." Wow, what a reach. Yes, he changed his position on offshore drilling (THANK GOODNESS). Why? Because he realized that increasing domestic production was a national security issue as well as an economic one and he needed to rethink his position. He still sees this as a short-term solution, not a long-term one, and is far more enthusiastic about other aspects of his energy plan, such as nuclear energy and developing a better battery to power electric cars. And he still does not support drilling in ANWAR, but there's always hope. *G*
To imply he changed his mind because of contributions from oil execs is laughable. So why, if he's in their pocket, did he not vote for the tax breaks for big oil that Obama and Biden voted for?

And another way example that twists the facts: "And the senator, who only a decade ago tried to ban registered lobbyists from working on political campaigns, now deploys 170 lobbyists in key positions as fundraisers and advisers." Yeah, yeah, yeah. Sorry, but the people you refer to are not CURRENTLY working as lobbyists-- they are former lobbyists. both sides have them on staff, but only the Obama folks are hypocritical enough to complain about the other side having them on staff. And Biden's brother and son still run a lobbying firm, right? But that's okay.

Okay, let's move on: "Then there's torture — the issue most related to McCain's own experience as a POW. In 2005, in a highly public fight, McCain battled the president to stop the torture of enemy combatants, winning a victory to require military personnel to abide by the Army Field Manual when interrogating prisoners. But barely a year later, as he prepared to launch his presidential campaign, McCain cut a deal with the White House that allows the Bush administration to imprison detainees indefinitely and to flout the Geneva Conventions' prohibitions against torture." Even Obama gives McCain credit for standing up against torture. And if you want to characterize what McCain did in later agreeing that we need some sort of way to deal with captured terrorists as "cutting a deal," well, so be it. The agreement to which you refer does not "flout the Geneva Convention"-- that's your spin, but it's not a fact. McCain still plans to close Guantanamo and still opposes torture. Wilkerson may not agree with McCain's position, but I do. You cite "former allies" but mention only one, a former Powell aide (and we saw how loyal Powell was to his old friend, didn't we? Didn't call to give him a heads-up on the endorsement of his opponent. I was surprised and disappointed.)

You conclude: "But perhaps the most revealing of McCain's flip-flops was his promise, made at the beginning of the year, that he would "raise the level of political dialogue in America." McCain pledged he would "treat my opponents with respect and demand that they treat me with respect."" Sounds remarkably like what Obama said, and he has not been above negative ads and misrepresenting his opponent's positions. Partisans on both sides see things through the lens of their own beliefs about the positions of their candidates and their own understanding of the issues. So where you see McCain misrepresenting Obama's position on middle class taxes, I see him explaining his understanding of that position, an explanation with which I agree. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

"Instead, with Rove protégé Steve Schmidt at the helm, McCain has turned the campaign into a torrent of debasing negativity...." Oohhhh, Rove, the antiChrist. Wait, I thought Cheney was the antiChrist. Whatever. Rove is a brilliant political strategist, that's for sure. The campaign is not a 'torrent of debasing negativity'-- as I've outlined countless times here, as have others, McCain constantly talks about his own plans in a number of areas in a positive way. He also points out the negative consequences of his opponents' plans, just as Obama does with his plans. That's what campaigns do. That's what helps voters decide which candidate's positions more closely match their own. mcCain is no more negative than Obama-- in fact, independent factcheck groups have said that Obama runs more negative ads than McCain. Of course, that's in large part because he runs more ads, period. And many of the ads on both sides that are characterized as "negative" do not strike me as such. They provide information about the candidate's opponent, which I think is fine.

Poor Republicans, always getting picked on.

Posted by: pefros | Oct 31, 2008 5:11:05 PM

Makes me want to go get a tissue to wipe away my tears..lol