Forgot to address your actual question - his misstatement won’t cost him support. The economics line might, though he can address that by showing he has a good economics team and that he’s committed to keeping Bernanke in the Fed - it could also be addressed with his VP choice.
ABC News, which originally did the research on Obama’s pastor’s sermons that led to this recent media storm, is still covering it, and they point out some of the same things I pointed out yesterday regarding Obama’s contradictions w/r/t Wright:
It also mentions the news on Rezko that came out last week and has been overlooked in the focus on Wright - namely the fact Rezko raised over $250K for Obama.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Do you think he actually doesn’t know Shiites from Sunnis, as opposed to that he misspoke?[/quote]
If it was a one time mistake, I wouldn’t even bother with it.
But he “misspoke” twice during that interview and had to be prompted by Lieberman to correct himself, and he made the same mistake earlier in the week while being interviewed on a radio show.
How many times can you attribute the same mistake to “misspeaking” before you start to consider that’s how he actually understands the issue?
I’d be a lot more concerned if his statements about policy or what is going on were highly flawed. I’m perfectly capable of looking directly at my brother and calling him 3 times by my Dad’s name, but I know who is who.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
I’d be a lot more concerned if his statements about policy or what is going on were highly flawed. [/quote]
Well, he’s still waving the pompoms about the Surge going great when Petraeus himself now says that there’s been insufficient political progress. ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/13/AR2008031303793.html )
One of them is wrong; the question is which one?
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Forgot to address your actual question - his misstatement won’t cost him support. The economics line might, though he can address that by showing he has a good economics team and that he’s committed to keeping Bernanke in the Fed - it could also be addressed with his VP choice.[/quote]
Why is it that when McCain’s lack of relevant experience is pointed out, it’s no big deal because he can put together a good team and choose a VP that complements his strengths (which are… er, Global Warming?); but that when we discuss Obama, then his lack of experience is simply a fatal flaw that leaves him with nothing to contribute?
[quote]pookie wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
Forgot to address your actual question - his misstatement won’t cost him support. The economics line might, though he can address that by showing he has a good economics team and that he’s committed to keeping Bernanke in the Fed - it could also be addressed with his VP choice.
Why is it that when McCain’s lack of relevant experience is pointed out, it’s no big deal because he can put together a good team and choose a VP that complements his strengths (which are… er, Global Warming?); but that when we discuss Obama, then his lack of experience is simply a fatal flaw that leaves him with nothing to contribute?
[/quote]
See, the proper answer for me is that they’re both horrible candidates.
It’s not as if McCain doesn’t have more experience with economic legislation and economic issues in the Senate than Obama or Hillary - it’s that he hasn’t immersed himself in economic policy. The experience issue with Obama is experience in government and with governing.
That said, to me, looking at their areas of relative strength, it’s because Obama lacks foreign-policy experience, and McCain doesn’t - and Obama’s major gaffes so far have been in foreign policy, which doesn’t give one hope. As I stated before, I think foreign policy is one of the main criteria for a President. None of the candidates has major experience as a leader in terms of foreign policy (no VPs, no former Secretaries of State), but McCain has the best foreign policy and the most experience in dealing with those issues. As much as it pains me to say it, Hillary is probably second best in that regard. And as for judges, McCain will certainly be better than either, from my perspective.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
See, the proper answer for me is that they’re both horrible candidates.[/quote]
Don’t get me wrong, I think all three possible candidates are lousy. But as long as you’re going to be stuck with one for at least 4 years, might as well go for He-Who-Sucks-The-Less.
None was my first choice, but of the three I like McCain best (which is to say I dislike certain things about him and his positions less than I dislike the other two).
[quote]pookie wrote:
Sloth wrote:
See, the proper answer for me is that they’re both horrible candidates.
Don’t get me wrong, I think all three possible candidates are lousy. But as long as you’re going to be stuck with one for at least 4 years, might as well go for He-Who-Sucks-The-Less.
[/quote]
I’m looking to vote for a third party candidate. The one who-Sucks-The-Less isn’t to be found in the two major parties.
McCain is an idiot. Read the following on a speach he gave on Iran. He is not a national security expert, he is an ignorant dumbass. Obama will destroy him in any debate and that is not saying much. God why does America have to be so stupid.
From James Tarranto today in the Opinionjournal, some columns touching on the Obama/Wright issue:
[quote]invictus1 wrote:
McCain is an idiot. Read the following on a speech he gave on Iran. He is not a national security expert, he is an ignorant dumbass. Obama will destroy him in any debate and that is not saying much. God why does America have to be so stupid.
Sad. And this McCain guy is being passed off as an foreign policy expert. How absurd. If McCain had a clue what he was talking about, he might stand a chance debating a wittier, faster, and more intelligent, and more charismatic man. Right now, his only hope is that Clinton becomes the democratic nominee, which is unlikely given his impending success here in Pennsylvania.
Good bye McCain.
[quote]pookie wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
I hardly think so. Maybe there’s a group that would care less. But that kind of affiliation would cost McCain the support of a A LOT of people.
Well he claims to be clueless about economic matters and his recent talks about Iran training Al Qaeda show him to be rather clueless on foreign policy too. After 5 years of Iraq war, he should be able to tell Sunnis from Shiites.
Do you think those issues (that actually matter a whole lot more than having a nutty pastor) will cost him support?
[/quote]
I think these issues will and have cost him the support of some people. At least the economic issues. Yes, others don’t and won’t care. Others will be mollified by him enlisting a good economic team as BostonBarrier says.
[quote]pookie wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
Forgot to address your actual question - his misstatement won’t cost him support. The economics line might, though he can address that by showing he has a good economics team and that he’s committed to keeping Bernanke in the Fed - it could also be addressed with his VP choice.
Why is it that when McCain’s lack of relevant experience is pointed out, it’s no big deal because he can put together a good team and choose a VP that complements his strengths (which are… er, Global Warming?); but that when we discuss Obama, then his lack of experience is simply a fatal flaw that leaves him with nothing to contribute?
[/quote]
Because there is still a real democratic primary. And Hillary has pitched herself as the candidate with the experience to get things done and tried to present Obama as a little boy with nice dreams but no experience and no ability to carry them out. McCain’s lack of experience [as well as lack of intelligence and insight] matters to a lot of people. It matters to me. But it’s a moot point because he is the Republican nominee.
People may lament the lack of experience but if they identify with his general policies, attitude, and stance on the issue more than either Hillary or Obama, they’ll suck it up and vote for him. It becomes more of an issue with true swing voters who aren’t clearly in line with him on the issues.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
pookie wrote:
Interesting take on the “pastor denounces America” posturing going on:
Apparently, it’s ok to do it if you’re a right-wing pastor denouncing right-wing issues.
…
How would people view McCain if Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson were McCain’s weekly pastor, whom he used as a “moral sounding board” and a mentor?[/quote]
Ross Douthat has a good post that’s very on-topic:
[i]Ezra Klein’s a smart guy, so I’m assuming this is a parody of liberal cluelessness rather than the real thing ( http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=03&year=2008&base_name=wright_and_falwell ):
[quote]Does anyone believe a long association with Jerry Falwell's church would have done anything but help McCain in the Republican primary, and gotten Democrats tagged as anti-religion when they tried to point out Falwell's nuttiness in the general? It's fine to be a Christian extremist in America. It's fine to believe, and say publicly, that everyone who hasn't accepted Jesus Christ into their heart will roast in eternal hellfire, fine to believe that the homosexuals caused Hurricane Katrina and the feminists contributed to 9/11, fine to believe we must support Israel so the Jews can be largely annihilated in a war that will trigger the End Times, fine to believe we're in a holy battle with the barbaric hordes of Islam, fine to believe that we went to the Middle East to prove "our God is bigger than your God." What you can't believe is that blacks have suffered a long history of oppression in this country, that they're still face deep institutional discrimination, and that a country where 100 percent of the presidents have been rich white guys is actually run by rich white guys. More to the point, even if you do believe those things, you certainly can't be angry about it![/quote]
What horseshit. If John McCain were an evangelical Christian and a longstanding member of Jerry Falwell’s congregation, and if he had written a memoir describing, say, how he was
“born again” under Falwell’s influence, he would not be the Republican nominee today. With a great deal of luck, he might �?? might �?? have done as well in the primaries as Mike Huckabee did, and of course you may recall that Huck had all kinds of difficulties winning non-evangelical votes, faring particularly poorly among Catholics; you may recall, as well, that the press delighted in lobbing him questions about evolution and wives submitting to their husbands and all the rest of it, without any fear of being tagged as anti-religion. And of course Falwell’s brand of evangelical Christianity is considerably more controversial than Huckabee’s. And considerably more apocalyptic, one might add: Imagine, for instance, how McCain’s support of the surge, and his hawkishness more generally, would have been treated if he attended a church whose pastor’s foreign policy views are defined by a belief in the imminence of Armageddon ( http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51180 ).
As to Ezra’s larger point, of course it’s “fine” to be a white Christian extremist in America; it’s also fine to be a black Christian extremist like Jeremiah Wright. This is a free country, after all. Nobody in the national media was parsing the Reverend Wright’s sermons before the 2008 campaign, and nobody would be parsing them today if he was just one minister among many supporting Barack Obama for President. I have no doubt that many, many Democratic politicians have put in an appearance at churches whose pastors share Wright’s outlandish political views without anyone kicking up a fuss, just as Republican politicians have long accepted the support of figures like Falwell without taking too much heat about it.
The distinction here, for the umpteenth time, is that Wright isn’t just Obama’s supporter; he’s his pastor, his friend, and his spiritual mentor, which makes him exactly the kind of person whose views ought to be of interest to a public that’s considering electing Barack Obama President of the United States. And as to the substance of those views, well, if Ezra really thinks that Wright’s sermons have sparked controversy because he broke a taboo against getting angry over the fact that “blacks have suffered a long history of oppression in this country” and “still face deep institutional discrimination,” I would suggest that he take another look at them, paying particular attention to Wright’s remarks about 9/11, as well as what appears to be his suggestion that the U.S. government created not only the crack epidemic, but the AIDS epidemic as well.
(It’s also worth noting that two of the specific examples of white Christian extremism Ezra nods to - Falwell’s 9/11 comments, and General William Boykin’s “my God is bigger than your God” remarks - both provoked controversies that ended in public apologies ( CNN.com - General explains statements criticized by Muslims - Oct. 17, 2003 ; http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/14/Falwell.apology/ ), albeit of the mealy-mouthed, “I’m sorry if you were offended” variety. Whereas I’m not holding my breath ( An "Attack" On The Church - The Atlantic ) waiting for Reverend Jeremiah Wright to “clarify” his remarks.)[/i]
[quote]invictus1 wrote:
McCain is an idiot. Read the following on a speach he gave on Iran. He is not a national security expert, he is an ignorant dumbass. Obama will destroy him in any debate and that is not saying much. God why does America have to be so stupid.
Ron Paul got laughed off stage, so we were left with the Three Stooges.
Americans profess to love the Constitution, yet vote for the 3 yo-yos who want to use it for toilet paper.
We deserve exactly what’s going to happen to us. Such is Justice…
[quote]Gael wrote:
invictus1 wrote:
McCain is an idiot. Read the following on a speech he gave on Iran. He is not a national security expert, he is an ignorant dumbass. Obama will destroy him in any debate and that is not saying much. God why does America have to be so stupid.
Sad. And this McCain guy is being passed off as an foreign policy expert. How absurd. If McCain had a clue what he was talking about, he might stand a chance debating a wittier, faster, and more intelligent, and more charismatic man. Right now, his only hope is that Clinton becomes the democratic nominee, which is unlikely given his impending success here in Pennsylvania.
Good bye McCain.[/quote]
Give me a break - his misstatement, in an extemporaneous conversation with reporters, doesn’t even demonstrate misunderstanding. It demonstrates a misstatement. But I can understand why the liberal wing is getting a bit nervous.
BTW, on Pennsylvania, a bit of wishful thinking on your part:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/pa/pennsylvania_democratic_primary-240.html
[quote]Sloth wrote:
pookie wrote:
Sloth wrote:
See, the proper answer for me is that they’re both horrible candidates.
Don’t get me wrong, I think all three possible candidates are lousy. But as long as you’re going to be stuck with one for at least 4 years, might as well go for He-Who-Sucks-The-Less.
I’m looking to vote for a third party candidate. The one who-Sucks-The-Less isn’t to be found in the two major parties. [/quote]
While that may make you feel better it just ensures your vote will be irrelevant!