Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
The American Presidency: This Thread Is 'Inartful'.
tuxkamen
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTSLBjA2R0w
And from Connecticut via kos:
Do you approve or disapprove of the way Joseph Lieberman is handling his job as United States senator?
Approve 45 (52)
Disapprove 43 (35)
That's a 15-point downward swing in support, from +17 approval to +2.
The crosstabs:
First Read wrote:He did not answer the first part of the question directly and later Obama, who said he had not spoken with Clark, seemed to bristle when asked why he had not talked with him and whether he felt the former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO owed McCain an apology, suggesting voters had more pressing matters on their minds.
"I guess my question is why, given all the vast numbers of things that we've got to work on, that that would be a top priority of mine?” he said. “I think that, you know, right now we're here to talk about how we can make sure that kids in Zanesville and across Ohio get the kind of support that they need and communities that are impoverished can start to rebuild. I'm happy to have all sorts of conversations about how we deal with Iraq and what happens with Iran, but the fact that somebody on a cable show or on a news show like Gen. Clark said something that was inartful about Sen. McCain I don’t think is probably the thing that is keeping Ohioans up at night."
And from Connecticut via kos:
Do you approve or disapprove of the way Joseph Lieberman is handling his job as United States senator?
Approve 45 (52)
Disapprove 43 (35)
That's a 15-point downward swing in support, from +17 approval to +2.
The crosstabs:
[FONT=Courier New] Tot Rep Dem Ind [/FONT] [FONT=Courier New]Approve 45 70 26 47 [/FONT] [FONT=Courier New]Disapprove 43 18 62 39[/FONT]
tuxkamen on
This discussion has been closed.
Posts
Agreed, and the most frustrating aspect for me is deciding which aspect of the argument to lead with - "He's not a Muslim" or "What the fuck does it matter anyway?"
He got an opportunity to adequately explain himself on The Daily Show, and he did so pretty well (He seems to speak better off-the-cuff than in a prewritten speech, which oddly enough is basically the exact opposite of Obama). I mean, if you want to say that The Daily Show isn't part of the left-leaning liberal media or whatever, that's fine I guess.
Several people here mocked those who took it out of context and also called McCain stupid for wanting a sustained troop presence in the middle east for 100 years full on Euro-zone peace or asplosions regardless.
Besides, I sorta thought that conservatives didn't like the notion of an American empire overseas. America First, Balkans 895th! Or something.
Nah, that he's somehow bellicose or that all things being equal, he'd prefer it.
You can't be stealing our governor. We're not done with him yet.
'He's a Christian, why does it matter?' is my token response because it refutes the claim and sorta promotes navel gazing about being afraid of/hating on muslims. Xenophobic navel gazing.
that was terrible, elks
I thought Obama and Clinton's continuous reiteration of an obvious McCain gaffe during the primaries was pretty embarrassing actually.
Still can't compete with Vitter-Craig demanding respect for the sanctity of marriage. We are living in the Onion.
Jesus Tapdancing Christ.
I can't even watch 3 minutes of that. This makes me really goddamn sad about the state of journalism in the country.
I wish they had framed it right. Empire, not 100 years of war. Ah well.
He tried to put it in context by comparing the future of Iraq to the way Korea is now, sorta skipping over the fact that it's going to take years (probably more than 5) to "stabilize" the country. Having permanent bases over there isn't going to help with stabilization either. Personally, I think his 100 years comment reflects more on his desire to have us in constant conflict in the middle east. Because that's exactly what putting down permanent bases is going to imply and engender.
His experience shouldn't give him a free pass on promoting horrible foreign policy, and if Obama can get the mainstream media to finally take a critical look at what McCain is saying, he's going to go a long way to completely de-toothing McCain.
That's not journalism, it's a long string of pundits trying to stir up shit.
Which would be fine, if it wasn't the only thing approaching journalism far too many Americans get.
That's because your navel isn't bigoted.
Haha, you must be new here. The "liberal media" is going to treat this issue like any other concerning McCain, namely using it to toss his salad. Saying they're fellating him wouldn't do justice to the stupidity that pundits have descended to.
BLAAAAAGGGH.
That is the only response I could gather.
Not allowing McCain to wave his military experience wang around freely, and it's horribly timed because it's never a good time to raise legitimate questions about a person's military service unless the person is a Democrat.
Whatever.
I'm well aware the media has a huge stiffy for McCain.
I also know the only thing they love more than blowing him is creating controversy where there is none. So if the idea of questioning McCain's experience in terms of command readiness and how valid his foreign policy is in an objective sense takes root, the very fact the media hasn't stopped fawning over him will get the tons of discussion coverage with dueling talking heads. And given pretty much every military leader who isn't insane hates the McCain/Bush strategy, we can get same damn fine surrogates out there hammering him, hopefully without putting their foot in their mouth like Clark did.
Pretty much.
In context? Nothing. When you cut out the fact that he's parroting Schiefer it sounds tone deaf to most people and provides an opening to claim that someone's attacking Saint McCain.
It's poorly timed because this is going to be obsessed over for another day or so completely undercutting Obama's big speeches that he had planned for this week.
It's a blunder because Clark used too many damn clauses to get across an idea in sound byte city, and it's horribly timed because it shit all over Obama's speech on patriotism, which was actually damn good, but gets either completely ignored in favor of tearing down Obama's image by association, or is mentioned only as a weak rebuttal of Clark.
Except the ones who need to be questioning McCain's experience are the media. And it's more than clear that they would prefer that someone else say something so they can go all "OMG, on no he di'int!"
Edit: Here's an easy soundbite version of the attack: "McCain made honorable sacrifices for his country, but that doesn't mean he is qualified to run it." Pick a variation of something like that, and run with it.
Well, they could talk about Iraq or Afghanistan.
Every day at lunch on my way out of the building I walk passed a cafe. Every day I walk passed, the television has Barack Obama giving a speech and the room is full of people. The television is tuned to Fox News.
I don't think Obama's speeches are getting tuned out.
So fucking true.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlUsiKfeDfo&eurl=http://areasofmyexpertise.blogspot.com/
http://www.ugo.com/movies/babylon-ad-video-gallery/?cur=vin-diesel-dungeons-and-dragons&morepics=1
I agree.
Who else wants Dracomicron to cry?
I'd like to think that, but what I've seen of fox news makes me pretty sure that if they're showing anything Obama is saying it's either out of context, or to give the talking heads a specific focus for their bile in the next 30 minutes.
I'd love to be wrong, but somehow I doubt they decided to become a real news network while I wasn't looking.
Not if you're reliant on evening broadcasts/summaries on Nightly, or equivalent. The obsessives will find it out, but my parents just watch the 5 o'clock news and it doesn't even mention anything substantial on the election that isn't a tit for tat tiffy.