Convention Watch

Why would the video on Cindy McCain highlight the fact that they started their relationship by lying to each other?

 

I thought John did a good job, his and Cindy's story was very touching. Unfortunately he had a few idiots to deal with.

 

Seems as though the GOP has a bunch of protesters inside and out. Think any of them actually know why those people are protesting or care?

I am tired of McCain showing that he was as a POW. Videos and speeches on this just don't sit right with me. We all know he served our country and was a POW but at some point I think that should not be used in a political run for POTUS.

Good showing at tonight's convention and I am glad. People should show up and support their candidate.

Good night,
Sherry

 

You know, I will say one thing about his mentioning of his military service. I was curious and looked up U.S. Presidents who have served with no military experience and only 11 men have been President with NO military experience. The last, of course, was Bill Clinton. Just a little trivia.

 

Who were the first & second?

 

I missed Cindy's but caught almost all of McCain's speach, I though it was wrote really well. I am more interested in seeing them all in debates. I think you will get a better feel for them when they have to answer questions without all the writers and under some pressure!

 

He earned the right too. Military service has and always should be highlighted in life, irregardless of your opinion about them.

 

I disagree, he might have been a bit long-winded about it last night. But the fact remains he has sacrificed a whole lot for this country. Until you've walked in his shoes, not sure it is anyone's place to criticize. If it makes some uncomfortable, so be it.

 

AMEN & AMEN

 

Doesn't the fact that he fought for YOUR rights to complain about it give him the right to use it in his campaign?

 

McCain is the GOP Obama!

Hmmmmm......Change, Change. Where have I heard that before??? Oh yeah Obama. So McCain's campaign doesn't even have an original theme! At least Palin can go back to AK after November. Neither of these 2 jokers will bring change. Obama is the same liberal socialist democrat candidate they have run for the past 30 years the only "change" is that he is black. McCain is just more of the GOP same old same old. The ONLY candidate who will bring REAL CHANGE to D.C. is Bob Barr. So go ahead follw the rest of the sheep or lemmings over the cliff. I won't be going along for the ride.

www.bobbarr2008.com

 

2 other notes

The term "democrat" was coined during the Adams/Jefferson race and was a pejorative term for someone who panders to the masses.

Have you noticed the democrat mascot is a jackass?

 

Yes, but his fighting for us is not the same as being a POW.

I do agree with Gen. Clark on this point, he should be honoured and praised for his war time duties, but his status as a former POW does not add any qualifications to being President.

 

Evidently I wasn't clear, and I was way too long winded too, because what you said is not at all what I meant. I don't even understand what you said, but I do know I did not say it was ok to lie.

What I tried to say is that Obama was against the surge. Plain and simple. From day one. McCain voted to fund the surge. Him voting against a particular version of a surge funding bill and for another doesn't change that fact. McCain not only voted for the surge, but he argued for it vigorously. Obama did not vote to fund the surge and still (as of the O'Reilly report yesterday) maintains that he was correct to oppose it. Until really recently he would not even admit that it was succeeding.

To say Obama opposed funding troops on the battlefield, the way I see it, is absolutely true. There were troops on the battlefield. They needed reinforcements in order to win. Obama wanted to bring them home before they completed the mission, rather than give them what they needed to win. They would have returned home in defeat if Obama had gotten his way. By implementing the surge, which military advisors, including David Petraeus, recommended and said had a chance of working, our troops now appear likely to be able to come home victorious.

What really bothers me is that Obama didn't even vote on dozens of bills, instead choosing to vote "present." I don't know why he did that. I suspect it was to prevent having to take a position on issues that might be difficult for him politically, but maybe there is another reason. At least with McCain, there is not much question where he stands. As a Republican, I know he has stood alone many times, angering those in his party, including me. If Obama has ever done that I am not aware of it.

There I go being long winded again. I may not have been any clearer this time, but at least I tried.

 

OK, let me get this straight. Because Obama voted the way John McCain wanted him to vote on the issue, he should be singled out as being "Anti-Troops" at the GOP convention?

 

Thought last week's TIME magazine was hilarious, the way they did a big story on John McCain's "honor" and how much it means to him to be honorable and honest at all times. They just glossed over the part about cheating on his first wife and lying to Cindy about his age.

Guess honor has a strange meaning this day and time.

 

That makes no sense whatsoever and is not what I said or even remotely what I said. Are you seriously telling me you don't understand why Obama is being criticized for opposing and not funding the troop surge and for being called to account for that position at the convention? That one vote is not the entirety of Obama's position and action/inaction on "the issue," as you put it.

How does Obama voting the same as McCain on ONE VERSION of ONE funding bill change the fact that he never voted in favor of or supported any aspect of the surge? In fact Obama ridiculed the idea of the surge's chances for success. McCain not only voted FOR the surge. He supported the surge vigorously. He was calling for a surge of troops before it was even being called a surge.

The fact that Obama and McCain voted the same way on ONE VERSION of a funding bill does not change any of that so it frankly makes no sense to me that you would use that as an argument that Obama should not be held to account for his opposition to the surge. If he is president he will be held to account for his positions on life and death issues such as this and he will not simply be able to vote present and he won't be able to say, well I should not be criticized for opposing the surge because one time on one version of one bill I voted the same way as McCain.

 

That is definitely a matter of opinion. For those who are vehemently anti-military it might matter a lot, but in a negative way. To some, his experience as a Vietnam POW will be seen as a strong positive qualification for President. To others (I assume you are in this category) it doesn't matter one way or another.

It matters to me in the case of McCain because his time in captivity shaped his view of his country and changed him forever. That moment in his life (actually that almost 6 years of his life) left a mark on him that will be there forever and influences the way he approaches everything he does and gives us an insight into his view of his country and life in general. I don't see how you can tell the story of John McCain and how he would approach the role of commander-in-chief without telling that story. It is not something he can ever forget because his body reminds him of it everyday. He cannot even raise his arms to a proper salute today because they were broken so severely.

I don't think military service is mandatory for President, but it is one component of the person's life experiences. Surviving 5 plus years as a POW gives some indication of how McCain might hold up in crisis situations and how he might stand up to various pressures. If that experience is what McCain wants to stress about what he brings to the table, then voters can decide whether or not it is relevant to them. If voters think he is overemphasizing it, they can punish him for it at the polls.

 

:cheers: :hurray:

 

No I just stated that Lieberman got a little lose with the facts, but I realize you don’t like fact checkers.

I posted the following from the Annenberg Public Policy Center, word for word:

• Lieberman also accused Obama of "voting to cut off funding for our American troops on the battlefield." But Obama's only vote against a war-funding bill came after Bush vetoed a version of the bill Obama had supported – and McCain urged the veto.

You than promptly started spinning:

Plus some more verbiage after that.

From that I got “Well it is OK to lie or mislead, damn the facts.”

I attempted a few times to get you to admit that either Joe spread a pile of BS as the Annenberg Public Policy Center has shown or to admit that you all will stoop to any depths to keep Obama from being our next President.

By the way the same falsehood was reported by Poltifact, which stated that Joe actually voted the same as Obama on the bill. Which in my book would make Joe a hypocrite.