Thanks for that, Wales.

No Problem. It just so happened that I heard about that bit of hypocrisy on tv a little while ago. This is interesting too:

McCain's Ad Cites Articles That Rip Him Worse Than Obama

Nico Pitney and Sam Stein

John McCain's attack ad released Tuesday evening is perhaps the most outlandish yet this election cycle -- not simply because the spot claims that Obama lacks any substantive record on education policy (he actually can claim several achievements on that front), and not because McCain charges that Obama's lone feat is "comprehensive sex education" for kindergartners (a hysterical description of efforts aimed at protecting children from predators).

What sets this ad apart is that every article save one that the McCain camp cites as being critical of Obama's education policies either has far more derogatory things to say about McCain himself or goes on to praise the Illinois Democrat.

In the spot, the McCain campaign references a June 2008 Washington Post editorial that called Obama "elusive" on school accountability. That same editorial, however, stated that McCain "has not been forthcoming with any detailed plan." Moreover, when the Post editorial board revisited the subject of education last month, it found that "Obama has given the issue more attention" than McCain, whose plan was "both late in coming and still a work in progress."

Moreover, the specific "elusive" claim is in reference to a David Brooks op-ed in the New York Times that was noted by the Post. But in that piece, Brooks was far more critical of McCain. "Obama endorses many good ideas and is more specific than the McCain campaign, which hasn't even reported for duty on education," the Times columnist wrote.

In its press release accompanying the ad, the McCain campaign also cites an Education Week article which states that, as a legislator, Obama "hasn't made a significant mark on education." The same story, however, goes on to add: "Sen. Obama may have a unique perspective among the candidates seeking the presidency in 2008. As a private citizen, he led Chicago's portion of the Annenberg Challenge school reform initiative financed by the late philanthropist Walter H. Annenberg--an experience that shaped Mr. Obama's perspective on the critical importance of principals and teachers."

Additionally, during the heat of the Republican primary, Education Week ran a withering story on the lack of McCain accomplishments in the field, titled "John McCain on Education: Where Art Thou?"

"With Republican presidential contender John McCain poised to make a strong showing--or even win--tomorrow's primary in New Hampshire, it seems appropriate to re-examine his views on education," read the story. "That's not such an easy task. Education doesn't make the Arizona senator's list of issues on his campaign website. ... McCain is a campaign-finance, foreign-relations, anti-abortion, tax-cut candidate. Education is not his thing."

Indeed, only one article referenced by the McCain campaign doesn't, in turn, rip the Republican nominee even harder than Obama. That article (which is misleadingly attributed in the ad to the Chicago Tribune) is a July 2008 op-ed by libertarian columnist Steve Chapman, who has also argued for abolishing the Department of Education.

No Problem. It just so happened that I heard about that bit of hypocrisy on tv a little while ago. This is interesting too:

McCain's Ad Cites Articles That Rip Him Worse Than Obama

Nico Pitney and Sam Stein

You mean they didn't vet the ads?

Figures.

Oh shut up McCain. Ann Richards, a woman, used that exact same phrase at the keynote speech in 1988, The phrase is, you can put lipstick and mascara on a pig and call her Monique, but she is still a pig. The first time I heard that phrase was from Jim Hightower, former agriculture commissioner of Texas.

Stop whining McCain. And stop whining McCain supporters.

The reaching is a bit pathetic because no matter how they want to paint Obama, they should at least be able to concede that he has manners and wouldn't be stupid enough to call Palin a pig. All of their fake outrage will eventaully start blowing up in their faces.

This time around the thing that has bothered me most hasn't been the usual partisan posturing, it's been the deliberate attempts to paint Barack Obama as "something" foreign, exotic, and dangerous and "not one of us."

Startled by Wales' unexpected appearance, a wide-eyed Brian looks up and drops the paintbrush, then hurriedly runs away, drops of paint trailing in his wake...

You mean they didn't vet the ads?

Figures.

They think everyone is stupid except them.

http://abcnews.go.com/politics/MatchoMatic...page?id=5542139

Interesting little match your candidate quiz.

I got Obama 4, the rest McCain...

Obama says McCain-Palin change mantra is like "lipstick on a pig"

This is getting ridiculous.

Obama is not helping his cause. I thought he was above this kind of stuff..

I agree. CNN was talking about what a stupid comment this was because it brought him down levels people didnt think he would sink to and that it also now will overpwoer whatever message or issues he did talk about. this will now be the focus.

No I don't like SP personally, but she is more likeable, there is a level of hillary hate that is so unbelievable that people can't even give you a real reason why they hate her. When the liberals start having SP hate collectibles at their conventions then she will be on hillary's level.

OK. I see what you're saying now....

Oh shut up McCain. Ann Richards, a woman, used that exact same phrase at the keynote speech in 1988, The phrase is, you can put lipstick and mascara on a pig and call her Monique, but she is still a pig. The first time I heard that phrase was from Jim Hightower, former agriculture commissioner of Texas.

Stop whining McCain. And stop whining McCain supporters.

ICAM. I'm so tired of Repubs whining about the "liberal media", when as JP points out above, CNN is even jumping on the bandwagon about that remark (aren't they usually targeted as being "liberal"?). When McCain himself said this same thing, was it pointed out like this in the media? Nope. Jeez, what cry babies. And I'm STILL waiting on The New Yorker to place a derogative cover on McCain like they did to Obama. Somehow, I don't think that will happen.

Here's an interesting article from one of our local columnists I thought I'd share:

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/orl-maxwell...0,507846.column

ICAM. I'm so tired of Repubs whining about the "liberal media", when as JP points out above, CNN is even jumping on the bandwagon about that remark (aren't they usually targeted as being "liberal"?). When McCain himself said this same thing, was it pointed out like this in the media? Nope. Jeez, what cry babies. And I'm STILL waiting on The New Yorker to place a derogative cover on McCain like they did to Obama. Somehow, I don't think that will happen.

It all bothers me. it seems each side only wants the other side to be made fun of, called out, and targeted. If it happens to the eprson they support no matter what its unfair, unblanced, and wrong., yet when it happens to other person its fine and dandy.

Personal attacks should not be ok from either side to the other. Attack the voting record, argue there standpoints. There are plenty of things to argue and debate without bringing in personal attacks. The media is to blame, but the partys and the supporters are not blameless either.

I dont care about Obama's church, palins daughter, or McCain's affair decades ago. I did at one point, im not going to deny it. but do i now? Not at all. I care about the issues.

It all bothers me. it seems each side only wants the other side to be made fun of, called out, and targeted. If it happens to the eprson they support no matter what its unfair, unblanced, and wrong., yet when it happens to other person its fine and dandy.

Personal attacks should not be ok from either side to the other. Attack the voting record, argue there standpoints. There are plenty of things to argue and debate without bringing in personal attacks. The media is to blame, but the partys and the supporters are not blameless either.

I dont care about Obama's church, palins daughter, or McCain's affair decades ago. I did at one point, im not going to deny it. but do i now? Not at all. I care about the issues.

Well said, JP. I would love love love this campaign season to be about the issues. If it were, the polls would look very different now and in Obama's favor. But everywhere you turn, and IA that the media is driving this, you see articles on the candidates "moral" standing or their church (both Obama and Palin - except now they are saying Palin's religion is out of bounds after they ran Obama's through the ringer) or their family dynamics.

I believe if the media wasn't fueling the fire, most of these things would never be mentioned. I mean, really, does it matter if someone wears a flag pin or not? I don't think so.

That being said, I believe that there is one party that plays into these non-issues the media throw out there more than the other. In this election and historically, if it will get votes to their side, they will use it. I won't say which party I believe it is, but will leave that for debate....

Well said, JP. I would love love love this campaign season to be about the issues. If it were, the polls would look very different now and in Obama's favor. But everywhere you turn, and IA that the media is driving this, you see articles on the candidates "moral" standing or their church (both Obama and Palin - except now they are saying Palin's religion is out of bounds after they ran Obama's through the ringer) or their family dynamics.

I believe if the media wasn't fueling the fire, most of these things would never be mentioned. I mean, really, does it matter if someone wears a flag pin or not? I don't think so.

That being said, I believe that there is one party that plays into these non-issues the media throw out there more than the other. In this election and historically, if it will get votes to their side, they will use it. I won't say which party I believe it is, but will leave that for debate....

Well, idk if i agree with that.

But overall i agree.

Really, i dont care who you support. Just support them because of the issues, not every other reason.

Is there another debate?

If so when?

And when is election day, nov 4th? Do we find out who wins that night? Because i think im gonna take it off and spend it at a bar, lol...

Oy vey...seriously? The hypocrisy is showing right now....I love all the fake "outrage". A line McCain has used more than once, people say it's fair to assume he was talking about Hillary Clinton.

A line Obama has used more than once, now they say he's talking about Palin. Right....I guess if Obama tries to paint her as "exotic" and "not one of us" that'll be something "sexist" too right?

GMAFB

Edited September 10, 200817 yr by Ryan

Oy vey...seriously? The hypocrisy is showing right now....I love all the "fake" outrage.

Anything to sway voters to their side. Everytime. I'm starting to dread the VP debate, because they are going to spin Biden's performance into something sexist, no matter how benign the statement is.

Now it's up to the "liberal" media to call McCain out on his hypocrisy. Somehow I don't think that will happen.

Edited September 10, 200817 yr by Greg's GL

So....ummmm....back to some issues. I found this. It's a report from Citizens Against Government Waste. It shows how senators voted on issues of pork barrel spending in fiscal year 2007 and then over his/her career in the senate. The results are given in percentages and are given from the perspective of the taxpayer. Therefore if a senator has a 55% rating it means that he voted "for" (in the interest of) the taxpayers.

http://councilfor.cagw.org/site/DocServer/....pdf?docID=3242

Our candidates/VP candidate (Palin does not vote in the US Senate so there is no data here) stand as follows:

McCain

2007 100%

Lifetime 88%

Biden

2007 0%

Lifetime 22%

Obama

2007 10%

Lifetime 18%

Interesting. Specific Bills are listed in the report.

Well, idk if i agree with that.

I say that because for MONTHS all the media could talk about was Obama's "radical" minister. Then talk of him being "exotic". Then (I know I keep mentioning this) The New Yorker cover. Then the Repubs questioning his faith and his not wearing a [!@#$%^&*] flag pin. How is this relevant to anything?

I mean, enough already. Any voter who would be gullible enough (and they exist) to swallow all of this bullshit has been swayed. And not by the issues. By the media and the opposing party running with anything that hits the news wire that's the least bit controversial.

Now they are saying that personal issues are off limits? GMAFB.