McCain cannot stand on his record
Advertisement
Text size: small | medium | large
Katie Casey
Published: August 17, 2008
Let’s ignore for a moment the perplexing fact that McCain’s “Senator Obama as a celebrity” ads redefined the ability to inspire millions of people as a negative quality in a political candidate. As a young,
first-time voter, what confuses me about these ads is, who they are aimed at. Maybe he thinks that there are scores of just-registered 18-year-olds sitting in front of MTV, waiting for an ad that uses the
name-calling strategies they recognize from grade school.
It’s a reasonable strategy. You’d think that the candidate who promised a “respectful campaign” would prefer ads about his famous maverick record, but then young voters might fact-check and find that
he’s voted with Bush 95 percent of the time and that he’s changed position on virtually every major issue in this election.
John McCain doesn’t stand on his record because he can’t. So instead, he pokes fun at the candidate who used his hard-earned Harvard degree to give back to his community. After all, respectful
campaigns just don’t get as many hits on YouTube.
KATIE CASEY
Montclair
Post a Comment
The commenting period has ended or commenting has been deactivated for this article.
Can't find what you're looking for? Try our quick search:
Reader Reactions
Posted by ( Irishlad ) on August 26, 2008 at 8:34 pm
Jva,
Have you not watched and listened to Obama? He says his health plan will be covered by the ending of the Bush’s tax cuts, about 50 to 60 billion a year. Obama wants to expand the head start program and to help “working” families with day care. He wants to expand college aid assistance. He has mentioned a number of times the money being spent on the war in Iraq will go to cover the other programs he wants to start or expand. If he is elected and the Dems maintain control of Control of Congress, I say he has a pretty good chance of getting what he wants.
The question is not what the money is being spent on, it is how much money, as I have pointed out the Dems love to say Bush is passing on the costs to our children and grandchildren. Yet, clearly the Dems would have no issues spending the same amount.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( jVA ) on August 26, 2008 at 8:32 am
“ it comes to spending would just spend the same amount, as you pointed out on domestic issues. “
Please show me where I stated the Dems would spend the exact same $12 billion a month on domestic issues if we weren’t spending it in Iraq.
1) This is not true. 2) You have nothing to base that $$ amount on and 3) Any domestic spending would have to be approved by congress and the Prez without the concern that they are withholding money our troops need.
Yes, we would prefer to spend money building schools in the US instead of Iraq. But your insistence that its a dollar for dollar trade off is just ridiculous. Iraq costs $12 billion EVERY SINGLE MONTH.
If you’re happy building bridges in Baghdad then vote McCain. No worries either way. Thanks to the responsible Republican party, our kids will get to pay the bill.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( Irishlad ) on August 25, 2008 at 8:57 pm
JVA,
The Dems while they bash Bush for spending money on the war, and lie that they are the responsible party when it comes to spending would just spend the same amount, as you pointed out on domestic issues.
How can the Dems bash Bush on spending too much money, when they would just spend it anyway? In the end, it is not the amount of money spent, it is about what the money is spent on.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( jVA ) on August 25, 2008 at 4:14 pm
My apologies to Ron and drunken sailors everywhere. I didn’t try very hard there reaching for a cliche.
“The current Congress is controlled by the Dems, have they slowed spending? Nope. “
Hmmmm. According to you, if Democrats are in charge, they’ll go on a wild spending spree of new domestic programs. So is that what has happened over the last two years? I don’t think so. Your theory looks a little leaky to me.
“instead of spending money on the war, we could have used that money on Domestic spending. It is no secret the Dems want to increase domestic spending. “
Yeah they want to go on a spending rampage to invest in roads so we don’t have any more bridges falling into the water. What a bunch of lunatics.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( Irishlad ) on August 25, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Jva,
A number of Dem’s have said that instead of spending money on the war, we could have used that money on Domestic spending. It is no secret the Dems want to increase domestic spending.
Also, as even you pointed out, Clinton worked with the GOP who controlled Congress from 1994 on. The current Congress is controlled by the Dems, have they slowed spending? Nope.
Keep making excuses for Wright and Obama going to his racist church for twenty years.
Also, nice to see Obama once again change is positions by picking Biden for his VP candidate. Biden loves lobbyists. I thought Obama said in his administration lobbyists would not have a say.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( RonCharest ) on August 25, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Do you know,
As a former sailor, I’ve always taken exception to the Republican slash-n-burn budgeting tactics being compared to a “drunken sailor.“ As an former occassionally drunk sailor, the only money I spent was my own, earned though physical labor while serving my country.
What the Republicans are doing is spending other people’s money and the money to be earned by other people’s kids, grand kids, and great-grand kids, to enrich other Republicans. None of those mentioned Republicans spending our money have ever done a day’s physical labor in their life, and most have never served anyone or anything other than themselves.
So no, Republicans are not spending like drunken sailors. Just wanted to make that perspective.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( jVA ) on August 25, 2008 at 10:56 am
“ The simple fact is that while the Dems blame Bush for spending money on the war, they would in fact spend the same amount on their social programs. How is that being fiscally reponsible? “
You’re saying that instead of war, the Dems are going to be spend $12 billion a month on new social programs? You have no basis at all for making this statement.
If you want to argue that this is your gut feeling, fine, but you cannot argue this is a FACT.
The FACT is that the last time we had a Democrat in the White House, we had a budget surplus and fiscal responsibility. The FACT is that with a Republican in the White House and Republicans controlling congress, our government has been spending like drunken sailors.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( jVA ) on August 25, 2008 at 10:47 am
“His speech earlier this year at the Press Club, the one that finally pushed Obama to disclaim and reject him, was another example of his hate speech. “
Yeah? What church is that?
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( Irishlad ) on August 22, 2008 at 11:36 pm
Jva,
There is plenty of video and audio tapes of Wright spewing his racist views. His speech earlier this year at the Press Club, the one that finally pushed Obama to disclaim and reject him, was another example of his hate speech. Keep denying it if you like, you just look foolish for doing so.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( jVA ) on August 22, 2008 at 10:07 am
“The fact the Pastor was preaching hatred and racism is in fact relivent, “
btw What a total crock this is. We’re expected to belive that this Pastor was preaching nothing by hate and racism for 36 years to nearly 9000 people every Sunday. Right. I’m sure that would be a big attraction for people looking to attend church, especially for a US Senator.
Maybe old white guys still secretly afraid of black people are willing to believe this garbage.
I can’t change your mind, but I’m happy to point out how ridiculous you guys sound ranting about the Reverend Wright.
Report Inappropriate Comment