Bishop Hedd Posted August 17, 2008 Author Share Posted August 17, 2008 These ads are what many people were thinking all along. I would have approved of an ad mocking Bush on those grounds too - I thought he brought nothing to the table but a folksy manner and a famous dad. My point is that many people are sick of our American Idol approach to politics, wherein smiling, looking good, and speaking in noncontroversial generalities is rewarded over substance and a track record which - by their very nature - will alienate some of the voters. As for the Moses angle, I don't understand why you see it as daffy. You have to be living under a rock not to see the cult-like adoration that has accompanied his campaign, particularly among the media, and the transcendant trappings his campaign has chosen to wrap itself in (we are the Change we've been waiting for, the seas are lifting, and all that). Why is satirizing that such a stretch? Is there something wrong with voters being troubled by what they see as a charismatic political movement? No I think there's something wrong when bitter Hillary supporters still hold a candle for her entrenched "gravitas". I'll forget the right fringe slime machine for this post and answer those such as yourself who feel Clinton was the right choice in the primary season. You must realize that many, and I do mean many, weren't too happy with her rolling over for Bush Cheney's ignorant war yet this doesn't seem to phase you...for whatever reason. And while the Corsi's and Floyd's are doing their usual hatchet job for the republican cause let's not forget it was Hillary, her husband and their surrogates who first laid the slime on Obama thick and heavy back when the right was sure that they would run against Hillary. I have no respect for old DLC hacks just as I'm sure you have no respect for Obama for not being an entrenched politico. Primary season is long over. Move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted August 17, 2008 Share Posted August 17, 2008 You must realize that many, and I do mean many, weren't too happy with her rolling over for Bush Cheney's ignorant war yet this doesn't seem to phase you...for whatever reason. This is why I will never support Obama. Hindsight is oh so easy. The intelligence may have been wrong, slanted, whatever. Fine. But when the DOS say's there is compelling evidence, the DOD say's there is compelling evidence, the IC say's there is compelling evidence, and your allies say there is compelling evidence, you had better accept it. I want a President who will defer to the career experts when there is a broad consensus, whether it be about terrorism, the environment, or global warming. We've had a selective listener for 8 years now - Obama will be more of the same. Just another guy who thinks he knows better. If my congressman is faced with a similar situaton where the testimony of the goivernment experts is fairly unaminous, then he had better authorize the use of force. Ironically, what shifted my support to Clinton was the backbone she showed in refusing to apologize for her vote during the debates, despite being badgered by Obama and Edwards over it and the unpopularity of the position within the party. I only wish Obama had such a pair, if not actual principals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bowery4 Posted August 17, 2008 Share Posted August 17, 2008 Well, I for one think it is too bad for all the name calling on here. That said, Obama is going to win and the swiftboating (I agree it is not the right term just one in the national venceculaur at the moment) won't work twice. The problem for the reps. is B-U-S-H and how much McCain sounds like him. As my mother used to say "change is good". Most people are going to believe that. Obama has some stuggles ahead to be sure, but after seeing how well he has done using his weaknesses to his advantage. I can't see how he will lose. I know I find him a bit less scary than Mc Cain even though I am closer in some ways to Mc Cain's pol. ideals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bishop Hedd Posted August 19, 2008 Author Share Posted August 19, 2008 Well, I for one think it is too bad for all the name calling on here. That said, Obama is going to win and the swiftboating (I agree it is not the right term just one in the national venceculaur at the moment) won't work twice. Well then what would you call it? "It's not that surprising to see such tactics from the people who painted a war hero as a traitor in 2004." http://www.buffalonews.com/248/story/417999.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted August 19, 2008 Share Posted August 19, 2008 Well then what would you call it? "It's not that surprising to see such tactics from the people who painted a war hero as a traitor in 2004." http://www.buffalonews.com/248/story/417999.html Just so the dimwits on this board understand. You're backing your claim that conservatives trash Obama's character by introducing evidence of said trashing by a liberal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted August 19, 2008 Share Posted August 19, 2008 Well then what would you call it? "It's not that surprising to see such tactics from the people who painted a war hero as a traitor in 2004." http://www.buffalonews.com/248/story/417999.html The truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bishop Hedd Posted August 19, 2008 Author Share Posted August 19, 2008 Just so the dimwits on this board understand. You're backing your claim that conservatives trash Obama's character by introducing evidence of said trashing by a liberal? I'm responding to Bowery's post in regard to "swiftboating" being the wrong term. The quote I took from the article is not only the opinion of the author but others as well. The same fringe wingnuts who trashed Kerry in '04 are now back for another grab at the brass ring in '08. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justnzane Posted August 19, 2008 Share Posted August 19, 2008 The truth. Wow, thats pretty harsh. If either candidate deserved to be questioned about their military record, it definitely shouldn't have been Kerry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted August 20, 2008 Share Posted August 20, 2008 If either candidate deserved to be questioned about their military record, it definitely shouldn't have been Kerry. Why not? Wasn't he running for President and weren't there several unanswered questions, inconsistancies and unreleased records in association with his service? Just because Bush dodged service doesn't mean Kerry deserved a pass on the issue. He never did release those records, did he? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted August 20, 2008 Share Posted August 20, 2008 Wow, thats pretty harsh. If either candidate deserved to be questioned about their military record, it definitely shouldn't have been Kerry. You mean the guy who got back to the States and accused his fellow troops of war crimes to help get his political career started? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted August 20, 2008 Share Posted August 20, 2008 Wow, thats pretty harsh. If either candidate deserved to be questioned about their military record, it definitely shouldn't have been Kerry. Really? How about Senator's Kerry's devotion to the military while he served in Congress? Or is that off limits too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justnzane Posted August 20, 2008 Share Posted August 20, 2008 Why not? Wasn't he running for President and weren't there several unanswered questions, inconsistancies and unreleased records in association with his service? Just because Bush dodged service doesn't mean Kerry deserved a pass on the issue. He never did release those records, did he? There weren't inconsistencies with her service as much as a bunch of them didn't like what he said afterwards to get his political career started. All of the allegations about his service turned out to be false. Now, what I am saying is that Kerry got so much crap for that while Bush got a free pass from his own party and supporters on the same topic. That's a double standard to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted August 20, 2008 Share Posted August 20, 2008 There weren't inconsistencies with her service as much as a bunch of them didn't like what he said afterwards to get his political career started. All of the allegations about his service turned out to be false. Now, what I am saying is that Kerry got so much crap for that while Bush got a free pass from his own party and supporters on the same topic. That's a double standard to me. How is it a double standard when Kerry was given a free pass from his supporters (you being Exhibit A)? Fact is that every voter should be asking the same questions of both candidates. Bush sucks for dodging service and he was rightly called out on it. But when people tried to question Kerry's service he stonewalled, refused to release his records and expected a free pass because he had been in Nam. And the fact that Dems are still whining about the fact that people didn't let him get away with that shows the real double standard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts