McCain's personal healthcare . . .

[KINGS17]

Originally Posted by Leonidas

So far we only have evidence that McCain will do whatever it takes to get elected. He's the one running the lies in his ads and telling Obama to have a "sense of humor" about being smeared.

I love how the gutless press can notice that McCain's Rove campaign is filled with filthy lies and innuendos but won't talk about that fact without first covering ass by saying "but both campaigns are doing it" when they aren't. That passes for being even handed.

By the way, you're still a dingus and drgycan lost his mind for a moment when he tried to reason with you.

So, the only party that uses negative ads is the GOP? Leo, you have so lost your grip on reality that it isn't even worth an actual response.

Originally Posted by dgrycan

The thing I see so far in Obama (and maybe perhaps even a little from the McCain camp) is that the issues aren't as cut and dry as maybe in elections past. It's always quick on the gun to say the words "flip flop" or "big fat liar", I believe on some of the issues, both candidates have evolved into opinions that may be seen as flip-flops, but are really just attempts to grasp reality.

Let's look at Obama's views on off-shore drilling. In the context of creating a bi-partisan energy plan, he basically said that some compromises would have to be made to get a comprehensive bill passed, and this was the issue that he felt would allow it to get done.

While that may sound like a flip-flop, I take it as a sign of political reality - as well as a move to keep it away as a potential wedge issue.

On the McCain side, while I certainly don't agree with much of his policy on Iraq, I also think it's nasty that the Dems continue to harp on the old "100 year" comment that was made a long time ago. Things have changed, conditions have changed, and if McCain were to say in the next few months (like he's hinted) that there may be signs for a potential US withdrawl - I'm going to focus on THAT positive, not on the fact that he's contradicted himself.

In fact, I think one of Bush's biggest drawbacks has been his steadfastness - being unable to change policy when conditions dictate. Oddly, he seems to only be able to do that now that he's in a lame-duck year with very little actual leverage in Washington.

Look - we've had countless disagreements on this board, but I do think we both agree that we'd like to see change in how campaigns are run, or specifically on how politicians convey their agreements/disagreements to the public. I know we're not going to SEE that change in our lifetime or perhaps anyone elses, but . . . .

oh . . . who am I kidding. A SLING? Come on!!!

I am not that into the "gotcha game". If a candidate has indeed changed his position based on the reality of the situation then fine. What concerns me are when candidates espouse a new position, only to lean back the other way again once they are elected.

So, if McCain changed his stance again on illegal immigration by going back to offering amnesty without securing the border first, that is the biggest insult to the people that vote for him. If he wins that is exactly what I am afraid we are going to get on that issue. He will wait a little while declare victory on border security and then push his amnesty plan again, then the flood of illegals will start all over again as soon as the economy recovers.

I would like to see a campaign where the candidates just tell us what they believe in instead of them checking the polls to find out what they should believe. No one will agree with a candidates position of every issue, but it would allow you to select the person whose values are the closest to corresponding to their own. Not gonna happen.

[Leonidas]

So, the only party that uses negative ads is the GOP? Leo, you have so lost your grip on reality that it isn't even worth an actual response.

Nice dodge, but what I said was that McCain has run a consistently dirty campaign against Obama ever since he swore he wouldn't. Obama hasn't done the same--I challenge you to produce evidence to the contrary in that specific case and not shift to the vague topic of the "party."

I am not that into the "gotcha game".

That's ridiculous. You wouldn't have responded to the opening post of this thread as you did if you weren't.

[KINGS17]

Originally Posted by Leonidas

Nice dodge, but what I said was that McCain has run a consistently dirty campaign against Obama ever since he swore he wouldn't. Obama hasn't done the same--I challenge you to produce evidence to the contrary in that specific case and not shift to the vague topic of the "party."

I am on to you Leo. You're constantly trying to frame the debate in your favor. Obama is the Democrat party dufus, just as McCain is the Republican Party at this point in time.

I thought by now you would understand that I don't play by "your rules".

Obama's Negative Ads - Swampland - TIME


Washington Times - Obama hits McCain with own negative ad

Look for the DHL ad:

First Read - msnbc.com

But the ad holds the same basic premise, so we point you back to our analysis of the radio ad:

"It's true that, as the Cleveland Plain Dealer pointed out..., 'In 2003, Davis lobbied the Senate to accept the proposal by DHL to buy Airborne Express for $1.05 billion. Airborne Express at the time ran the airport and package-sorting facility in Wilmington.'

"But is that a smoking gun? Not exactly. The Plain Dealer also pointed out that the acquisition 'resulted in expansion, not retraction' and 'several Wilmington civic leaders said that what happened in 2003 created an economic gain for their community, lasting several years.'" ...

First thoughts: Losing my religion? - First Read - msnbc.com

*** Obama’s stealth ad campaign: Over the past week, we've gotten our hands on a number of negative TV ads Obama's been running against McCain in key states like Ohio and Michigan. This is in addition to the tough spot, uncovered by Politico [*** UPDATE *** Actually the spot was uncovered by the Washington Times' Christina Bellantoni, who reported on it yesterday and was linked to by Politico] , that Obama's airing in Indiana. Clearly, the Obama campaign isn't interested in telling the media about every single McCain attack ad they’re running. Perhaps this is because Obama's brand can't afford to be tarnished too much if he's seen as constantly running negative TV ads. So the campaign simply puts them on the air in key markets, doesn't tell the press about them, and layers those ads with positive ones being run nationally during the Olympics. Also, by not releasing to the media, it forces the McCain camp to wait a day or two before they see the ad. McCain's camp is much more comfortable unveiling their negative ads, perhaps because they want the free press that comes with them. But make no mistake, Obama’s running plenty of negative TV ads, particularly in the industrial Midwestern states. In fact, one of Obama's biggest candidate strengths -- which doesn't get the attention it deserves -- is that he plays political hardball as well as his opponents; he just sometimes does it under the radar.

Open Left:: Adwatch: Seven Obama Negative TV Ads Against McCain So Far


Now you can whine about the negative ads all you want, but they are part of the game. You probably don't see the Obama ads as negative, but as simply telling the truth about McCain. I see the McCain ads as a clever way of pointing out that Obama doesn't have the experience or the "chops" to be President.

Quit being an f'ing cry baby.

Game, set, match.