Good McCain has done enough lying in his TV ads. The problem McSame has is he can not say what "victory" or "winning" is....

Glad to see that ABC, so far, has been fair in covering both candidates.
I wish CNN would take the hint. CNN is Obama's network - bought and paid for.

Looks like McCain's relationship with the media may be turning a new page. Seems like Obama is the hot new fad for the media now and McCain is yesterday's sweetheart.

To put it another way, McCain starting to a taste of what the first wife experiences when replaced by the trophy wife.

Well McCain can always have Karl Rove write the editorial in the WSJ.

Dr. Larry Hunter: Lifelong Conservative Republican Economist Supports Senator Obama

I’m a lifelong Republican - a supply-side conservative. I worked in the Reagan White House. I was the chief economist at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce for five years. In 1994, I helped write the Republican Contract with America. I served on Bob Dole’s presidential campaign team and was chief economist for Jack Kemp’s Empower America.

This November, I’m voting for Barack Obama.

When I first made this decision, many colleagues were shocked. How could I support a candidate with a domestic policy platform that’s antithetical to almost everything I believe in?

The answer is simple: Unjustified war and unconstitutional abridgment of individual rights vs. ill-conceived tax and economic policies - this is the difference between venial and mortal sins.

Taxes, economic policy and health care reform matter, of course. But how we extract ourselves from the bloody boondoggle in Iraq, how we avoid getting into a war with Iran and how we preserve our individual rights while dealing with real foreign threats - these are of greater importance.
John McCain would continue the Bush administration’s commitment to interventionism and constitutional overreach. Obama promises a humbler engagement with our allies, while promising retaliation against any enemy who dares attack us. That’s what conservatism used to mean - and it’s what George W. Bush promised as a candidate.

Plus, when it comes to domestic issues, I don’t take Obama at his word. That may sound cynical. But the fact that he says just about all the wrong things on domestic issues doesn’t bother me as much as it once would have. After all, the Republicans said all the right things - fiscal responsibility, spending restraint - and it didn’t mean a thing. It is a sad commentary on American politics today, but it’s taken as a given that politicians, all of them, must pander, obfuscate and prevaricate.

Besides, I suspect Obama is more free-market friendly than he lets on. He taught at the University of Chicago, a hotbed of right-of-center thought. His economic advisers, notably Austan Goolsbee, recognize that ordinary citizens stand to gain more from open markets than from government meddling. That’s got to rub off.

When it comes to health care, I am hoping Obama quietly recognizes that a crusade against pharmaceutical companies would result in the opposite of any intended effect. And in any event, McCain’s plans in this area are deeply problematic, too. Take drug re-importation. McCain (like Obama) says he’s perfectly comfortable with this ill-conceived scheme, which would drive research and development dollars away from the next generation of miracle cures.

But overall, based on his embrace of centrist advisers and policies, it seems likely that Obama will turn out to be in the mold of John Kennedy - who was fond of noting that “a rising tide lifts all boats.” Over the last few decades, economic growth has made Americans at every income level better off. For all his borderline pessimistic rhetoric, Obama knows this. And I believe he is savvy enough to realize that the real threat to middle-class families and the poor - an economic undertow that drags everyone down - cannot be counteracted by an activist government.

Or maybe not. But here’s the thing: Even if my hopes on domestic policy are dashed and Obama reveals himself as an unreconstructed, dyed-in-the-wool, big-government liberal, I’m still voting for him.

These past eight years, we have spent over a trillion dollars on foreign soil - and lost countless lives - and done what I consider irreparable damage to our Constitution.
If economic damage from well-intentioned but misbegotten Obama economic schemes is the ransom we must pay him to clean up this foreign policy mess, then so be it. It’s not nearly as costly as enduring four more years of what we suffered the last eight years.

http://letustalk.wordpress.com/2008/07/19/dr-larry-hunter-lifelong-conservative-republican-economist-supports-senator-obama/

wow... I know he was not a great student...but wow.

So now McCain has to MIRROR Bambi's articles -- he has to respond, and not write his own position papers? Obama gets to write about whatever he wants, and theNYT is eager to print those. McCain isn't allowed the same access, apparently. His stuff is only good enough when he's responding to our Messiah.

The media bias at the most disgusting level.

A new Rasmussen survey shows that "Belief Growing That Reporters are Trying to Help Obama Win".

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/belief_growing_that_reporters_are_trying_to_help_obama_win

Also, Obama's lead is down to 1 point - his favorable rating is now lower than McCain's.

Media bias is backfiring -- the more they want to influence the election, the less credibility they have, and the less effective they can be.

McCain's rejected NYT piece:

In January 2007, when General David Petraeus took command in Iraq, he called the situation “hard” but not “hopeless.” Today, 18 months later, violence has fallen by up to 80% to the lowest levels in four years, and Sunni and Shiite terrorists are reeling from a string of defeats. The situation now is full of hope, but considerable hard work remains to consolidate our fragile gains.

Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent. "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,” he said on January 10, 2007. “In fact, I think it will do the reverse."

Now Senator Obama has been forced to acknowledge that “our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence.” But he still denies that any political progress has resulted.

Perhaps he is unaware that the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has recently certified that, as one news article put it, “Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress.” Even more heartening has been progress that’s not measured by the benchmarks. More than 90,000 Iraqis, many of them Sunnis who once fought against the government, have signed up as Sons of Iraq to fight against the terrorists. Nor do they measure Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki’s new-found willingness to crack down on Shiite extremists in Basra and Sadr City—actions that have done much to dispel suspicions of sectarianism.

The success of the surge has not changed Senator Obama’s determination to pull out all of our combat troops. All that has changed is his rationale. In a New York Times op-ed and a speech this week, he offered his “plan for Iraq” in advance of his first “fact finding” trip to that country in more than three years. It consisted of the same old proposal to pull all of our troops out within 16 months. In 2007 he wanted to withdraw because he thought the war was lost. If we had taken his advice, it would have been. Now he wants to withdraw because he thinks Iraqis no longer need our assistance.

To make this point, he mangles the evidence. He makes it sound as if Prime Minister Maliki has endorsed the Obama timetable, when all he has said is that he would like a plan for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops at some unspecified point in the future.

Senator Obama is also misleading on the Iraqi military's readiness. The Iraqi Army will be equipped and trained by the middle of next year, but this does not, as Senator Obama suggests, mean that they will then be ready to secure their country without a good deal of help. The Iraqi Air Force, for one, still lags behind, and no modern army can operate without air cover. The Iraqis are also still learning how to conduct planning, logistics, command and control, communications, and other complicated functions needed to support frontline troops.

No one favors a permanent U.S. presence, as Senator Obama charges. A partial withdrawal has already occurred with the departure of five “surge” brigades, and more withdrawals can take place as the security situation improves. As we draw down in Iraq, we can beef up our presence on other battlefields, such as Afghanistan, without fear of leaving a failed state behind. I have said that I expect to welcome home most of our troops from Iraq by the end of my first term in office, in 2013.

But I have also said that any draw-downs must be based on a realistic assessment of conditions on the ground, not on an artificial timetable crafted for domestic political reasons. This is the crux of my disagreement with Senator Obama.

Senator Obama has said that he would consult our commanders on the ground and Iraqi leaders, but he did no such thing before releasing his “plan for Iraq.” Perhaps that’s because he doesn’t want to hear what they have to say. During the course of eight visits to Iraq, I have heard many times from our troops what Major General Jeffrey Hammond, commander of coalition forces in Baghdad, recently said: that leaving based on a timetable would be “very dangerous.”

The danger is that extremists supported by Al Qaeda and Iran could stage a comeback, as they have in the past when we’ve had too few troops in Iraq. Senator Obama seems to have learned nothing from recent history. I find it ironic that he is emulating the worst mistake of the Bush administration by waving the “Mission Accomplished” banner prematurely.

I am also dismayed that he never talks about winning the war—only of ending it. But if we don’t win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president. Instead I will continue implementing a proven counterinsurgency strategy not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan with the goal of creating stable, secure, self-sustaining democratic allies.

Amy- Obama is up by 6 in the Gallup Poll. Scott Rasmussen is a regular on the Hannity show...Need I say more!

If McCain doesn't want "timetables", "timelines", "time horizons", whatever he should at least in his OpEd write about what he defines "success" in Iraq as and what criteria must be met before the troops can come home.

The fact that McCain has been so vague in his policy is the reason why NYT won't take his OpEd. It appears that it was just a bunch of bashing of Obama rather than real substance.

McCain we need DETAILS...

Mcain if you claim the surge has worked then why do you oppose withdrawing out troops and mccain what is your stance on afghanistan or do you not have none because you are clueless you think iraq and pakistan share a border thats the funniest thing ive heard all day i cant stop laughing and some people want this man for potus shaking my head right now no no no no no

McCain has no strategy for Iraq. "More of the same" is not a strategy.

The "awakening councils" changed things in Iraq (before the surge).

McCain's response was to take credit.

Malike has changed things in Iraq by successfully taking on Shia militant groups AND refusing to sign on to an unlimited occupation by American forces.

McCain's response:

Refusal to acknowlege that the Iraqi government doesn't want a permanent occupation.

Obama changed things in Iraq by offering a intellegent, thoughful piece in the NY Times that discussed among other things, what victory in Iraq means.

McCain's response:

Old talking points, written by a staffer.
No new information.
No new proposals.
No understanding of the role of the awakening councils.
No understanding of the relationship between shia and sunni.
No understanding of Iran's heightened power in the middle east due to the invasion of Iraq.
No acknowlegement of the central point in the war on terrorists: Afghanistan
A vain search for the border between Iraq and Afghanistan.

The NYTimes is so full of it. Whatever you think of McCain, PRINT THE GUY'S PIECE for crying out loud. Don't tell him what he has to say or that he has to "mirror" Obama. It's an important issue, he might be the next president and Obama has already had an op-ed piece on the same topic. I HATE ARROGANCE!

I have never seen a campaign whine more than McCain's.

The funny thing about this is that the more the MSM tries to paint Obama as the "president", probably the less public is feeling that way. Just like how the media ran 24/7 coverage bashing Bill Clinton during the Lewinsky scandal. yet, Bill left the office with one of the highest public ratings for recent presidents.

Two weeks from now, when Obama gained no points (very likely) from recent media hype, an new article will come out with the title "Despite the media bias, Obama is still not guaranteed to win...".

I agree I have never heard a candidate whin as much as McCain.

Signed Hillary Clinton

Get used to it John. When given a choice between Republican and republican light, who won? BUSH. When given a choice between Liberal Democrat and Liberal Republican, who are the people (influenced by "your friends", the media) gonna vote for??? The liberal DEMOCRAT!!! Jeez, this guy NEVER learns!!!

Glad to see that ABC, so far, has been fair in covering both candidates.
I wish CNN would take the hint. CNN is Obama's network - bought and paid for.

Posted by: Caroline | Jul 21, 2008 1:49:57 PM

**************

are you kidding me? CNN is Mccain favorite grand child. they ONLY report on Obama's "controversy", still waiting on them to report on Mccain, still waiting on them to report on Maliki supporting Obama's Iraq plan. you republican have already taken over FOX, you are taking over CNN with the likes of lou dobbs (who is doing your dirty job) and that fool on CNN headlines.

amy,

Thank you for printing McCain's NYT piece. It is very clear why it was rejected. The piece has no substance whatsoever. Instead of outlining HIS idea of what a victory in Iraq would look like, McCain used the format to bash Obama.

Subjective bashing vs. substance. Obama wins. McCain needs a new message and quick.

Since I never read this thing (newspaper?), I can only assume they have a burr up their a;;. I thank you for printing the NYT response to Mr. McCain because a careful reading will reveal why no one ought to read this thing.