McCain: Frustrated, Angry, Old.., and Scurrilous

College Confidential Community
21

<p>Politics</a> | ON DEADLINE: Obama Walks Arrogance Line | Seattle Times Newspaper
"to know me is to love me."
"Every place is Barack Obama country once Barack Obama's been there."
"It will light upon you," he continued. "You will experience an epiphany. And you will say to yourself, I have to vote for Barack. I have to do it."</p>

<p>!!!!!!He holds firmly to views and doesn't like to be challenged, traits that President Bush packaged and sold under the "resolute" brand in the 2004 election. For Bush, those qualities proved to be dangerous in a time of war and in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.</p>

<p>He recently said he would still oppose the surge even if we knew for sure it was going to succeed. He does not care about Iraq at all, he just wants out to be out!</p>

<p>I am not for staying in Iraq for the sole purpose of staying there. When the realities are good, then we'll do it. Flip flopping is changing your positions to appease the public. McCain has had a history of holding positions contrary to the public. Obama has been getting heat because of his "move" to the center recently.</p>

<p>Both</a> Ways Barack | Transcript</p>

<p>disgusting</p>

<h1>Anyway, in the prospects of an Obama presidency, things will be better than a Bush one, assuming that Obama is more like a Clinton centrist than a Carter wimp. It's sad though that such an arrogant unprincipled man might take the reigns...</h1>

<p>On iraq, people in the pentagon are involved in this. big higher people. I don't have access to all of the intelligence so I won't try to support anything that might undermine our security</p>

<p>to chris
honda and toyota are reaping huge benefits of being efficient early on, ford just lost $9B. The free market does not always work (mortgage crisis) but there are some things the government should stay out of.
See, this is what government will do with "research"
Us</a> Dept Of Energy Investing 30m For Plug In Hybrid By 2014
All that money into defense spending, justified as "research"?
'Comfort</a> capsules' in planes for Air Force draw flak | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle</p>

<p>McCain once again realizes the reality and is in support of cutting defense spending while Obama, who probably knows whats best, pretends to be a big military "supporter" that won't touch this issue.</p>

<p>On oil
We need to get off of it, but as I said, having the govt pour "research" into it won't help. Common sense approaches like higher cafe standards for cars will. And for the decades that we'll have to rely on it, we might as well drill more now and have it cheaper now. What? Drilling will take a couple of years for supplies to come in? Demand has been crimped for months now, which has been part of the decline in oil prices, but Bush's confidence in our own supplies has also helped</p>

<p>John McCain 08</p>

22

<p>
[quote]
He holds firmly to views and doesn't like to be challenged

[/quote]
</p>

<p>What are you talking about? When Obama dismayed many left-wingers with his FISA vote, he took the time to write a letter of explanation to all his supporters. How many politicians would take the time to explain their actions to those annoying gadflies known as idealists? </p>

<p>
[quote]
He recently said he would still oppose the surge even if we knew for sure it was going to succeed. He does not care about Iraq at all, he just wants out to be out!

[/quote]
</p>

<p>He wants to get out? Now, so does McCain! The latest ignorant spin is that while McCain would access the situation (essentially Obama's consistent position all along), Obama would pull out no matter what. God, how pathetic is it that a 72 year old so-called foreign policy expert has to play sidekick to a political babyface?</p>

<p>
[quote]
And for the decades that we'll have to rely on it, we might as well drill more now and have it cheaper now.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>One thing though: oil is not a national resource and whoever drills the meager amounts of American oil have the right to sell it to the highest bidder. I'll bet China or India outbids America for that oil.</p>

<p>
[quote]
It's sad though that such an arrogant unprincipled man might take the reigns...

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Translation: How dare a liberal, a BLACK liberal, think he can do better where conservative old white men failed?!</p>

23

<p>Those are words of his colleagues that he's a stubborn man. Egoists are pretty sure of their own beliefs. Iraq/surge, brazil/ethanol, cutting defense spending, etc etc.</p>

<p>Alice palmer, reverend wright, disgusting.</p>

<p>Obama's been wanting to pull out forever! Regardless of the circumstances, despite what he says now. Why do you think there was such a fervor when he said he might have to "refine" his Iraq plans?</p>

<p>1 thing though: more oil is cheaper than less oil. If that new oil wasn't there, then China and India would just outbid us for even more and we'd pay more.</p>

<p>Translation: I can't believe this phony might run our country. NO</a> QUARTER
Take a look and open your eyes
His black "liberalness" has nothing to do with it. I applaud both McCain and Obama's centrism. Time has told us that McCain is the wiser one, the one that has taken unpopular positions that have actually been necessary. Iraq would not be where it is now if the surge wasn't supported.
Checkpoint</a> Baghdad : McCain vs. Obama: Who?s Right on the Surge?
"Obama has said his early-2007 plan for a careful troop pullout could have also calmed Iraq. Most Iraqis would have said that a U.S. withdrawal then would have continued Iraq's horrible downward spiral. Probably. "</p>

<p>So what makes you think Obama will be better for America? Will he loosen govt regulations on oil drilling so that we'll have cheaper oil while companies develop electric/hydrogen/hybrid cars, alternative fuels? Will he cut defense spending so that the Air Force doesn't make any "comfort suites" for itself?
Obama:</a> Embarrassed by America - HUMAN EVENTS Will he be embarassed because a lot of us don't speak Spanish? Or claim that people cling to guns and religion during times of hardship?</p>

24

<p>stop bringing up Obama's race every time he is called arrogant/unprincipled-it really gets old.</p>

25

<p>
[quote]
Those are words of his colleagues that he's a stubborn man.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>If you want to talk about stubborn, what about McCain's Youtube problem? He constantly denies saying certain things despite obvious video evidence.</p>

<p>
[quote]
1 thing though: more oil is cheaper than less oil.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>By about 30 cents, at most. That's very visionary thinking right there. Why rebuild the failing dam when you can just stick your finger in the hole?</p>

<p>
[quote]
Time has told us that McCain is the wiser one, the one that has taken unpopular positions that have actually been necessary.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Name me one unpopular position McCain has taken that he has not reneged on. You can cross off immigration, torture, tax cuts, GI bill, and not advocating a timetable off the list.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Iraq would not be where it is now...

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Let me finish that off for you: Iraq would not be where it is now had not the likes of John McCain supported the stupid endeavor in the first place back in 2002. McCain can try to claim a little bit of high ground on the surge, but Obama can nail him on the issue of going in the first place. I'd stay out of this if I were McCain.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Will he loosen govt regulations on oil drilling so that we'll have cheaper oil while companies develop electric/hydrogen/hybrid cars, alternative fuels?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Drilling off the coast of Florida will not make any dent in global oil prices. Get that through your head. Not only that, but that oil is going to be sold to the highest bidder. It doesn't automatically go to America. That would be communism or something. You're not a communist, are you?</p>

<p>
[quote]
stop bringing up Obama's race every time he is called arrogant/unprincipled-it really gets old.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Arrogance, or "being uppity", has been used extensively against ambitious blacks for the longest time in American history. It would be intellectually dishonest to consider it a mere coincidence that the first viable black presidential candidate has some people so riled up about his "arrogance" and "presumptuousness". Furthermore, anybody who actually watches and listens to Obama would see how humble he is. When he announced his candidacy in Springfield back in 2007, he stressed that this campaign could not only be about him, because he was only one man and flawed in many ways. He stressed that only if the people took responsibility and held him accountable to his and their ideals, could his candidacy and presidency amount to anything. He always speaks of his campaign as a wider movement, of which he is only the most visible, and not even the most important, member. Obama always uses the pronoun "we" in his speeches, whereas politicians like Hillary always use "I".</p>

26

<p>there have been tons of arrogant presidential candidates-its practically a requirement. George Bush, Bill Clinton, even Al Gore to some extent. Imo, this has nothing to do with race.</p>

<p>Have you considered maybe, just maybe, that he is being called arrogant b/c he is unqualified in years to be president in the minds of some?</p>

<p>calling someone "uppity" is an insult directed towards African Americans, I agree. But it was the Obama supporters who brought this up in this thread in the first place.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Furthermore, anybody who actually watches and listens to Obama would see how humble he is.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I dont know if tv spots and speeches are enough to accurately gauge his character.</p>

<p>
[quote]
...because he was only one man and flawed in many ways.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>this isnt unique to Obama. Politicians have admitted their mistakes/flaws before.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Obama always uses the pronoun "we" in his speeches, whereas politicians like Hillary always use "I".

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Again, this really means nothing in the end. McCain uses "My friends..." - whats your point?</p>

27

<p>All I'll say is this.</p>

<p>This election year should, by all means, result in the defeat of the Republican nominee. The fatal triumvirate of an unpopular war, depressed economy, and a highly unpopular incumbent should automatically result in the defeat of his party. History shows that this is a constant throughout American presidential elections.</p>

<p>However, if by some extraordinary measure, McCain manages to pull a miracle, defined in its loosest and most generous sense, largely due to a public grudge against Obama (by far the candidate with the superior judgment and ideas, as evident by John "No Economy" McCain stealing his ideas on Iraq) for somehow being "elitist" or "arrogant", despite his humble beginnings and all-American family life, then I call out the American electorate for racism. Sorry, but they lost the benefit of the doubt a long time ago.</p>

<p>Decry his policies if you must. Say that staying in Iraq indefinitely to secure the peace is better than pulling out. Say that market deregulation for banks should not be reversed. Say that Roe v. Wade must be overturned. </p>

<p>But don't be so desperate to latch onto any irrational "gut feeling" (such as blaming his arrogance as a rationale for not voting for him) in order to avoid confronting your own prejudice that a guy like Obama is simply and fundamentally different from you and will not take care of America, despite all her flaws, like how a parent unconditionally takes care of an erring child.</p>

28

<p>Trey Ellis pretty well sums it up in this essay:</p>

<p>Trey</a> Ellis: How Much Did McCain Pay for the Hillary Handbook?</p>

29

<p>"Let me finish that off for you: Iraq would not be where it is now had not the likes of John McCain supported the stupid endeavor in the first place back in 2002. McCain can try to claim a little bit of high ground on the surge, but Obama can nail him on the issue of going in the first place. I'd stay out of this if I were McCain."</p>

<p>-It's pretty easy for Obama to claim he was against the war because he wasn't even in the Senate to vote on it at the time. Many Democrats(including Hilary) and Republicans voted for the war so you can't blame McCain for that, since the Senators acted based on the info they were given. Therefore there's no real way to guarantee Obama was against the war as there are no actual records of his voting. Which is precisely Obama's problem for me. I have no idea where he stands as it seems he constantly argues both sides of an issue, and there aren't a lot of voting records to go by. I've been split in this election but at least with McCain I know what I'm getting.</p>

30

<p>McCain thought the war would be "overwhelming and easy" - and considering his supposedly foreign policy/military "expertise" - we can blame him for such a drastic miscalculation.</p>

<p>YouTube</a> - John McCain vs. John McCain</p>

<p>YouTube</a> - John McCain Gets Owned on Meet The Press</p>

<p>McCain, the "foreign-policy expert" seems to not comprehend that Somalia is more of a hotbed for Islamic radicals than Iraq due to much more local support.</p>

31

<p>"McCain thought the war would be "overwhelming and easy" - and considering his supposedly foreign policy/military "expertise" - we can blame him for such a drastic miscalculation."</p>

<p>^This is true and unfortunate for McCain and I realize that McCain's "expertise" is overrated. I, however find it unfair that he gets so much of the brunt of the blame for the Iraq War since in the end it was Bush's lies that caused the senators to make their decisions to go to war. I also find it unfair that Obama constantly makes it sound like he voted against the war when he wasn't even in the Senate to vote on the war. Who knows what Obama would have done if he was presented with the lies that Bush gave the senators at the time.</p>

32

<p>
[quote]
It's pretty easy for Obama to claim he was against the war because he wasn't even in the Senate to vote on it at the time. Many Democrats(including Hilary) and Republicans voted for the war so you can't blame McCain for that, since the Senators acted based on the info they were given. Therefore there's no real way to guarantee Obama was against the war as there are no actual records of his voting. Which is precisely Obama's problem for me. I have no idea where he stands as it seems he constantly argues both sides of an issue, and there aren't a lot of voting records to go by. I've been split in this election but at least with McCain I know what I'm getting.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That's a lame argument. So you have to be one of the 100 U.S. senators in order to demonstrate proper judgment on the war? That means only 3.33x10^-7 of the population's opinions matter? The Dixie Chicks sure weren't senators when they proclaimed their opposition and caught hell for it. That was the kind of culture that Obama found himself in, yet he went out of his way when he didn't have to (he was only a state senator after all) and spoke his conscience. So not only did he exercise good judgment, but he also showed great courage and adherence to principles. </p>

<p>What you're implying by saying that it was easy for Obama to make a call on the war is that the senate corrupts and makes cowardly politicians out of everybody. So was John McCain being a political coward when he was one of the leading cheerleaders and aggressive enablers of the Iraq War? Was John McCain, like Obama, against the war but had to keep it secret because of political ramifications? I really don't see what being a senator has to do with comparing the Iraq judgments of Obama and McCain. Obama was right, and McCain couldn't have been more wrong. Simple as that.</p>

33

<p>McCain = McBush. That's all there is to it. :D
(And yes, I know, that's pushing it a bit. But that's what I believe.)
GO OBAMA!</p>

34

<p>"...That was the kind of culture that Obama found himself in, yet he went out of his way when he didn't have to (he was only a state senator after all) and spoke his conscience. So not only did he exercise good judgment, but he also showed great courage and adherence to principles."</p>

<p>-Alright I just want to highlight this part because it's been somewhat debatable and I know I could be wrong on it. Did Obama publically come out and say he was against the war before/during the decision to go, or did he criticize the war much later(which is what I believe). </p>

<p>Because everyone with half a brain knows the war was a miscalculation now that we have the results. If what you say is true and Obama publically criticized the plan to go to war BEFORE it began, then I can truly respect Obama(thus eliminating my lack of confidence in him) and will admit defeat on this issue. After all I don't particularly support either candidate at the moment and my decisions on who to vote for are constantly changing. If Obama's is just publically criticizing it now during election season then neither candidate has the higher ground on this issue in my eyes.</p>

35

<p>From the NYT:</p>

<p>
[quote]
While Mr. Obama's stances on the war are generally of a piece, he has been more outspoken on some aspects than others. In 2002, in the weeks before and after the Senate voted on the war resolution, Mr. Obama, then a state senator, took a strong antiwar line, popular in his liberal Chicago district, and repeatedly said President Bush ''has not made his case for going into Iraq.''

[/quote]
</p>

36

<p>What most people don't realize is that Obama, McCain and Bush are not all together very different. Both whites are neo-conservatives, which is liberal in nature and Obama is quite Liberal. While they may have different views on welfare and abortion, the main pillars of liberalism and neo-conservatism are identical.</p>

<p>The deciding factor in the election will probably be the war. But again these 3 don't differ much. Sure they all may have different foreign policy's, different ways of doing things, but you have to ask, does it matter?</p>

<p>Bush and McCain both like Iraq, they feel we need to stay, but so did Both Clinton and Al Gore. Obama as we all no, wants to get out.</p>

<p>All 3 are worried about Iran and all three wont rule out force.</p>

<p>All 3 want more troops on Afghanistan. Obama seems most adamant of this.</p>

<p>All 3 are GO for going into Pakistan.</p>

<p>All 3 want more and more forign policy and from here 2008</a> Presidential Candidate Spending Analyses</p>

<p>I can say, Obama wants to spend a tad more. Well only 17 billion more.</p>

<p>NTU's</a> Fiscal "Snapshot" of the 2008 Presidential Race</p>

<p>So all in all, we need to realize these guys are not to different and we need to pick them on other basis.</p>

37

<p>[url=<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/28/AR2008072802464.html%5Dwashingtonpost.com%5B/url"&gt;http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/28/AR2008072802464.html]washingtonpost.com[/url&lt;/a&gt;]&lt;/p>

38

<p>
[quote]
What most people don't realize is that Obama, McCain and Bush are not all together very different. Both whites are neo-conservatives, which is liberal in nature and Obama is quite Liberal. While they may have different views on welfare and abortion, the main pillars of liberalism and neo-conservatism are identical.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>McCain's new campaign slogan:</p>

<p>"Vote McCain. He's almost as good as Obama!"</p>

<p>Nice try, but McCain is no Obama. Neoconservatism was born from the minds of 60s left-wingers, but it's like the disowned child now, and 8 years of Bush rule has shown what a failing ideology it is. Don't try to drag down old-fashioned liberalism down with that stupid school of thought.</p>

39

<p>nbachris2788
There was no nice try, as I wast trying anything.</p>

<p>McCain may be no Obama and for different reasons you can say Obama is no McCain.</p>

<p>Il let you read on what neoconservative really is, I cant do it again. Because you aren't entirely right on what you think it is.</p>

<p>You call neoconservative a stupid school of thought, well it is much more related to to social liberalism than any other ideology. Like I said the pillars of neoconservative are the same in liberalism and neoconservative. I agree both social liberalism and neoconservative are both incredibly stupid. They are both incredibly ineffective and well almost always fail.</p>

<p>Like I said and I will stand by it the most liberal senator of all time and the moderate neoconservative are not all to different.</p>

40

<p>Hey bedhead do you have a link to that? Cuz i can't find it. If this is true than Obama does have the higher ground on this issue.</p>