|
Obama Campaign Cuts Off Interviews W/Fl TV Station
|
|
Topic Started: Oct 27 2008, 09:16 AM (509 Views)
|
|
Minuet
|
Oct 27 2008, 01:55 PM
Post #16
|
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
- Posts:
- 36,559
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #2
- Joined:
- May 19, 2003
|
- Admiralbill_gomec
- Oct 27 2008, 01:37 PM
- ImpulseEngine
- Oct 27 2008, 09:53 AM
Interesting interpretation Dan, but mine differs. My interpretation of those events is this. The campaign is in the final 8 days (not counting election day itself) and Obama is the clear front runner. At this point, it makes no strategic sense for them to do anything that is risky. This reporter and station seemed bent on asking questions that were aiming to trip Biden up. At some other point in the campaign when they were still fighting for the lead, Biden would have had to answer those questions because the negative from not answering them could significantly impact the long run. However, at this point in the campaign, the minor negative from not answering those questions is insignificant compared with the potential negative if he answers even just one question poorly. I think it's nothing more than simple strategy and it makes sense to me. It's not at all a reflection on Biden's abilities. Let's face it, ANYONE could trip up. So why should they take that chance this late in the campaign?
Here's my interpretation of the event: The Obama campaign is being petty and vindictive because this interviewer didn't follow the playbook and ask Biden softball questions. I mean, how dare anyone question The Messiah... How is asking if Obama is a Marxist tripping (the admittedly gaffe-tastic) Biden up? He could have said, "No." He might have added, "You are taking things out of context." End of story. Good thing West didn't ask Biden about Obama's 2001 comments on "redistributive wealth." But that's the topic of another thread. Give me a moment. The Marxist question was silly in the extreme. I mean seriously, does the reporter understand the difference between Marxism and what the Democrats are actually saying?
No wonder Biden asked if the reporter was kidding. Not once did Obama say that he felt that everyone in the country deservse an equal share of the pot. Redistribution only means that he wants to address the widening gap between rich and poor and give more people an opportunity to do better. No one is coming and taking people's businesses away or doing anything that will end your way of life.
The accusation of Marxism was ridiculous and I fully understand why Biden would not want to patronize a station that has such obvious bias against him. Just like the McCain campaign does not want Palin interviewed by stations they see as having a vested interest in making her look bad.
|
|
|
| |
|
Admiralbill_gomec
|
Oct 27 2008, 02:02 PM
Post #17
|
UberAdmiral
- Posts:
- 26,022
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #5
- Joined:
- August 26, 2003
|
- Minuet
- Oct 27 2008, 01:55 PM
- Admiralbill_gomec
- Oct 27 2008, 01:37 PM
- ImpulseEngine
- Oct 27 2008, 09:53 AM
Interesting interpretation Dan, but mine differs. My interpretation of those events is this. The campaign is in the final 8 days (not counting election day itself) and Obama is the clear front runner. At this point, it makes no strategic sense for them to do anything that is risky. This reporter and station seemed bent on asking questions that were aiming to trip Biden up. At some other point in the campaign when they were still fighting for the lead, Biden would have had to answer those questions because the negative from not answering them could significantly impact the long run. However, at this point in the campaign, the minor negative from not answering those questions is insignificant compared with the potential negative if he answers even just one question poorly. I think it's nothing more than simple strategy and it makes sense to me. It's not at all a reflection on Biden's abilities. Let's face it, ANYONE could trip up. So why should they take that chance this late in the campaign?
Here's my interpretation of the event: The Obama campaign is being petty and vindictive because this interviewer didn't follow the playbook and ask Biden softball questions. I mean, how dare anyone question The Messiah... How is asking if Obama is a Marxist tripping (the admittedly gaffe-tastic) Biden up? He could have said, "No." He might have added, "You are taking things out of context." End of story. Good thing West didn't ask Biden about Obama's 2001 comments on "redistributive wealth." But that's the topic of another thread. Give me a moment.
The Marxist question was silly in the extreme. I mean seriously, does the reporter understand the difference between Marxism and what the Democrats are actually saying? No wonder Biden asked if the reporter was kidding. Not once did Obama say that he felt that everyone in the country deservse an equal share of the pot. Redistribution only means that he wants to address the widening gap between rich and poor and give more people an opportunity to do better. No one is coming and taking people's businesses away or doing anything that will end your way of life. The accusation of Marxism was ridiculous and I fully understand why Biden would not want to patronize a station that has such obvious bias against him. Just like the McCain campaign does not want Palin interviewed by stations they see as having a vested interest in making her look bad. Really? Then why did Palin do interviews with CBS, NBC, and ABC; all of whose interviews went out of their way to make Palin look bad?
Oh please...
|
|
|
| |
|
ImpulseEngine
|
Oct 27 2008, 02:03 PM
Post #18
|
Admiral
- Posts:
- 9,851
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #7
- Joined:
- August 26, 2003
|
- Admiralbill_gomec
- Oct 27 2008, 01:37 PM
- ImpulseEngine
- Oct 27 2008, 09:53 AM
Interesting interpretation Dan, but mine differs. My interpretation of those events is this. The campaign is in the final 8 days (not counting election day itself) and Obama is the clear front runner. At this point, it makes no strategic sense for them to do anything that is risky. This reporter and station seemed bent on asking questions that were aiming to trip Biden up. At some other point in the campaign when they were still fighting for the lead, Biden would have had to answer those questions because the negative from not answering them could significantly impact the long run. However, at this point in the campaign, the minor negative from not answering those questions is insignificant compared with the potential negative if he answers even just one question poorly. I think it's nothing more than simple strategy and it makes sense to me. It's not at all a reflection on Biden's abilities. Let's face it, ANYONE could trip up. So why should they take that chance this late in the campaign?
Here's my interpretation of the event: The Obama campaign is being petty and vindictive because this interviewer didn't follow the playbook and ask Biden softball questions. I mean, how dare anyone question The Messiah... How is asking if Obama is a Marxist tripping (the admittedly gaffe-tastic) Biden up? He could have said, "No." He might have added, "You are taking things out of context." End of story. Good thing West didn't ask Biden about Obama's 2001 comments on "redistributive wealth." But that's the topic of another thread. Give me a moment. The point, AB, is that comparing Obama to a Marxist is an obvious attempt to paint him in that light - one which would not be well received. Otherwise, why didn't she simply ask for clarification on what he meant by "spreading the wealth" if she just wanted to understand more about it? The "spreading the wealth" comment is also a highlight that the McCain campaign has been using in their negative TV and radio ads. And so is Biden's comment predicting that Obama will be tested which was the other question specifically mentioned in the article. But there are apparently more questions too than just those two. I can't watch the video right now so I don't know what they are. But these questions appeared to be just more of the negative attacks and so I think it is smart for Obama's campaign to avoid answering them. I don't care what answer they could give, those that disagree with the philosophies being presented will not be convinced and so Biden's or Obama's words will just be thrown back at them - you know it. Why would they want to subject themselves to a sure losing situation when they are poised to win?
|
|
|
| |
|
Minuet
|
Oct 27 2008, 02:04 PM
Post #19
|
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
- Posts:
- 36,559
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #2
- Joined:
- May 19, 2003
|
- Admiralbill_gomec
- Oct 27 2008, 02:02 PM
- Minuet
- Oct 27 2008, 01:55 PM
- Admiralbill_gomec
- Oct 27 2008, 01:37 PM
- ImpulseEngine
- Oct 27 2008, 09:53 AM
Interesting interpretation Dan, but mine differs. My interpretation of those events is this. The campaign is in the final 8 days (not counting election day itself) and Obama is the clear front runner. At this point, it makes no strategic sense for them to do anything that is risky. This reporter and station seemed bent on asking questions that were aiming to trip Biden up. At some other point in the campaign when they were still fighting for the lead, Biden would have had to answer those questions because the negative from not answering them could significantly impact the long run. However, at this point in the campaign, the minor negative from not answering those questions is insignificant compared with the potential negative if he answers even just one question poorly. I think it's nothing more than simple strategy and it makes sense to me. It's not at all a reflection on Biden's abilities. Let's face it, ANYONE could trip up. So why should they take that chance this late in the campaign?
Here's my interpretation of the event: The Obama campaign is being petty and vindictive because this interviewer didn't follow the playbook and ask Biden softball questions. I mean, how dare anyone question The Messiah... How is asking if Obama is a Marxist tripping (the admittedly gaffe-tastic) Biden up? He could have said, "No." He might have added, "You are taking things out of context." End of story. Good thing West didn't ask Biden about Obama's 2001 comments on "redistributive wealth." But that's the topic of another thread. Give me a moment.
The Marxist question was silly in the extreme. I mean seriously, does the reporter understand the difference between Marxism and what the Democrats are actually saying? No wonder Biden asked if the reporter was kidding. Not once did Obama say that he felt that everyone in the country deservse an equal share of the pot. Redistribution only means that he wants to address the widening gap between rich and poor and give more people an opportunity to do better. No one is coming and taking people's businesses away or doing anything that will end your way of life. The accusation of Marxism was ridiculous and I fully understand why Biden would not want to patronize a station that has such obvious bias against him. Just like the McCain campaign does not want Palin interviewed by stations they see as having a vested interest in making her look bad.
Really? Then why did Palin do interviews with CBS, NBC, and ABC; all of whose interviews went out of their way to make Palin look bad? Oh please... If you read the article I posted it addresses that very question.
Apparently McCain's people didn't want her to do much - but Palin is not cooperating.
|
|
|
| |
|
Minuet
|
Oct 27 2008, 02:07 PM
Post #20
|
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
- Posts:
- 36,559
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #2
- Joined:
- May 19, 2003
|
- ImpulseEngine
- Oct 27 2008, 02:03 PM
- Admiralbill_gomec
- Oct 27 2008, 01:37 PM
- ImpulseEngine
- Oct 27 2008, 09:53 AM
Interesting interpretation Dan, but mine differs. My interpretation of those events is this. The campaign is in the final 8 days (not counting election day itself) and Obama is the clear front runner. At this point, it makes no strategic sense for them to do anything that is risky. This reporter and station seemed bent on asking questions that were aiming to trip Biden up. At some other point in the campaign when they were still fighting for the lead, Biden would have had to answer those questions because the negative from not answering them could significantly impact the long run. However, at this point in the campaign, the minor negative from not answering those questions is insignificant compared with the potential negative if he answers even just one question poorly. I think it's nothing more than simple strategy and it makes sense to me. It's not at all a reflection on Biden's abilities. Let's face it, ANYONE could trip up. So why should they take that chance this late in the campaign?
Here's my interpretation of the event: The Obama campaign is being petty and vindictive because this interviewer didn't follow the playbook and ask Biden softball questions. I mean, how dare anyone question The Messiah... How is asking if Obama is a Marxist tripping (the admittedly gaffe-tastic) Biden up? He could have said, "No." He might have added, "You are taking things out of context." End of story. Good thing West didn't ask Biden about Obama's 2001 comments on "redistributive wealth." But that's the topic of another thread. Give me a moment.
The point, AB, is that comparing Obama to a Marxist is an obvious attempt to paint him in that light - one which would not be well received. Otherwise, why didn't she simply ask for clarification on what he meant by "spreading the wealth" if she just wanted to understand more about it? The "spreading the wealth" comment is also a highlight that the McCain campaign has been using in their negative TV and radio ads. And so is Biden's comment predicting that Obama will be tested which was the other question specifically mentioned in the article. But there are apparently more questions too than just those two. I can't watch the video right now so I don't know what they are. But these questions appeared to be just more of the negative attacks and so I think it is smart for Obama's campaign to avoid answering them. I don't care what answer they could give, those that disagree with the philosophies being presented will not be convinced and so Biden's or Obama's words will just be thrown back at them - you know it. Why would they want to subject themselves to a sure losing situation when they are poised to win? Impulseengine - I just watched the video. I don't think it is accurate to say that Biden didn't answer the questions. He clearly did answer the questions. By refusing to do more interviews with that station I think he is just stating that he doesn't want to be interviewed again in such a biased manner. I don't blame him.
|
|
|
| |
|
Admiralbill_gomec
|
Oct 27 2008, 02:08 PM
Post #21
|
UberAdmiral
- Posts:
- 26,022
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #5
- Joined:
- August 26, 2003
|
Well, now that we're off topic, what does it have to do with JOE BIDEN refusing to ask a perfectly rational question?
Suppose someone asked John McCain, "So, do you capitalists want to exploit the worker?" Wouldn't that be a perfectly acceptable question? I think so, as silly as I may think it.
|
|
|
| |
|
Admiralbill_gomec
|
Oct 27 2008, 02:13 PM
Post #22
|
UberAdmiral
- Posts:
- 26,022
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #5
- Joined:
- August 26, 2003
|
- ImpulseEngine
- Oct 27 2008, 02:03 PM
- Admiralbill_gomec
- Oct 27 2008, 01:37 PM
- ImpulseEngine
- Oct 27 2008, 09:53 AM
Interesting interpretation Dan, but mine differs. My interpretation of those events is this. The campaign is in the final 8 days (not counting election day itself) and Obama is the clear front runner. At this point, it makes no strategic sense for them to do anything that is risky. This reporter and station seemed bent on asking questions that were aiming to trip Biden up. At some other point in the campaign when they were still fighting for the lead, Biden would have had to answer those questions because the negative from not answering them could significantly impact the long run. However, at this point in the campaign, the minor negative from not answering those questions is insignificant compared with the potential negative if he answers even just one question poorly. I think it's nothing more than simple strategy and it makes sense to me. It's not at all a reflection on Biden's abilities. Let's face it, ANYONE could trip up. So why should they take that chance this late in the campaign?
Here's my interpretation of the event: The Obama campaign is being petty and vindictive because this interviewer didn't follow the playbook and ask Biden softball questions. I mean, how dare anyone question The Messiah... How is asking if Obama is a Marxist tripping (the admittedly gaffe-tastic) Biden up? He could have said, "No." He might have added, "You are taking things out of context." End of story. Good thing West didn't ask Biden about Obama's 2001 comments on "redistributive wealth." But that's the topic of another thread. Give me a moment.
The point, AB, is that comparing Obama to a Marxist is an obvious attempt to paint him in that light - one which would not be well received. Otherwise, why didn't she simply ask for clarification on what he meant by "spreading the wealth" if she just wanted to understand more about it? The "spreading the wealth" comment is also a highlight that the McCain campaign has been using in their negative TV and radio ads. And so is Biden's comment predicting that Obama will be tested which was the other question specifically mentioned in the article. But there are apparently more questions too than just those two. I can't watch the video right now so I don't know what they are. But these questions appeared to be just more of the negative attacks and so I think it is smart for Obama's campaign to avoid answering them. I don't care what answer they could give, those that disagree with the philosophies being presented will not be convinced and so Biden's or Obama's words will just be thrown back at them - you know it. Why would they want to subject themselves to a sure losing situation when they are poised to win? He IE, if the shoe fits...
"Why would they want to subject themselves to a sure losing situation when they are poised to win?" Because the Obama campaign refuses to answer hardball questions. I WANT TO KNOW what kind of man could be my president, and if I find out he supports Marxist redistributionist policies I'm going to damned well do everything I can to be sure that everyone and their sheepdog friggin' knows it!!!
Stop hiding under your blanket and see your candidate for what he is. If this is what you want (No, I don't mean that vapid "Change" BS) in your candidate, then support him. BUT LOOK AND SEE WHAT HE STANDS FOR and what he wants to do. Take a good, long, HARD look.
|
|
|
| |
|
Dandandat
|
Oct 27 2008, 02:16 PM
Post #23
|
Time to put something here
- Posts:
- 17,948
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #34
- Joined:
- August 30, 2003
|
- Minuet
- Oct 27 2008, 01:41 PM
- Dandandat
- Oct 27 2008, 01:03 PM
- Minuet
- Oct 27 2008, 12:19 PM
http://www.thestar.com/News/USElection/article/525030- Quote:
-
Republican tilt: 'maverick' McCain vs. 'rogue' Palin
Lee-Anne Goodman The Canadian Press
WASHINGTON–Facing a deft assault by Democrats and widescale rejection by voters, John McCain and Sarah Palin are circling the wagons and firing inwards at each other with just eight days until the presidential election.
The tattered remains of their ticket were everywhere yesterday, with both McCain and Palin insiders publicly on the attack to hold the other side responsible for their candidate's woes on the campaign trail. One McCain insider said she was "going rogue."
"She is a diva – she takes no advice from anyone," an unnamed McCain adviser told CNN over the weekend. "She does not have any relationships of trust with any of us, her family or anyone else ... also, she is playing for her own future and sees herself as the next leader of the party. Remember: divas trust only unto themselves, as they see themselves as the beginning and end of all wisdom."
Those close to Palin, however, say she has simply tried to break free of a McCain campaign that mishandled her, making her the butt of international jokes in the process.
"The campaign as a whole bought completely into what the Washington media said – that she's completely inexperienced," a close Palin ally told the Politico website.
"Her strategy was to be trustworthy and a team player during the convention and thereafter, but she felt completely mismanaged and mishandled and ill-advised. Recently, she's gone from relying on McCain advisers who were assigned to her to relying on her own instincts."
Palin is apparently most miffed at McCain advisers Nicolle Wallace and Steve Schmidt. It was their decision to limit Palin's media contact to interviews with ABC's Charlie Gibson and a series of chats with CBS's Katie Couric parcelled out over several cringe-worthy days. They proved to be disastrous for both the Alaska governor personally and McCain's campaign.
Wallace sent an emailed response to several news organizations over the weekend: "If people want to throw me under the bus, my personal belief is that the most honourable thing to do is to lie there," she wrote.
In recent weeks, Palin has publicly parted ways with the McCain campaign on various fronts, leading many to speculate she is attempting to distinguish herself from the flailing Arizona senator and forge her own identity in preparation for a run for the White House in 2012.
Among them:
She wondered in an interview with The New York Times why McCain, a self-styled maverick, had deemed off-limits Obama's association with his one-time pastor, the incendiary Rev. Jeremiah Wright; She questioned the use of so-called robocalls by the campaign, calling them annoying; She disagreed with the campaign's decision to pull out of the state of Michigan. These and other departures from the campaign's positions have prompted one McCain insider to suggest Palin is "going rogue."
A Palin associate defended her, saying she is "not good at process questions" and that her comments on Michigan and the robocalls were answers to process questions.
One political observer says it's no wonder if indeed she is going rogue.
"She should sue them for malpractice," said Sam Popkin, author of The Reasoning Voter: Communication and Persuasion in Presidential Campaigns. "They chose her because they needed some energy, they needed a personality, and they turned that personality into an idiot due to their hurried, ad hoc choice of her and their subsequent cluelessness on how to handle her."
The McCain campaign should have figured out who they wanted as their vice-presidential candidate weeks earlier and begun preparing that person for the spotlight long before they announced it, said Popkin, a University of Southern California political science teacher.
"No one could have handled that kind of international attention without any preparation."
But others say many of Palin's unexpected shortcomings forced the McCain campaign to keep her out of the media spotlight.
"Her lack of fundamental understanding of some key issues was dramatic," another McCain source told CNN. The source said it was probably the "hardest" to get her "up to speed than any candidate in history."
Recent polls suggest Palin has been a significant drag on the Republican ticket despite being popular among the party's core supporters, with most of those surveyed saying they have no confidence she has the qualifications to be vice-president.
She's also been dogged with scandal since joining the ticket. She was found guilty in a legislative report of abusing her power as governor in the "Troopergate" scandal over attempts to have her former brother-in-law fired. She is now facing another probe over whether she violated ethics rules in the affair.
Last week it was revealed $150,000 had been spent on clothes for Palin since late August.
Talk about off topic. I would ask why you are so emotionaly invested in this election that you would try to end dicution of a topic subject as you are here. Its just an election and in a week it will all be over. you shouldn't get this wraped up in it. You couldn't rebut what I said so you retreated to the "off topic" excuse. Your point about "leadership" is that it is not shown when someone avoids talking to people who ask them tough questions. Why should this be limited to Biden? This has nothing to do with me being invested in any way in this campaign. I can't even vote in your elections. Do I really need to start another thread to show how pathetic some of the partisanship I see displayed here is? Frankly you are asking me to discuss a topic that I think is a fabrication. Clutching at straws to try and convince people to vote differently. It's terrrible when one leader does something you don't like, but when it is pointed out that your favoured leader has done the same it is suddenly declared off topic? Please! No I chose not to rebut what you said, I may not have even disagreed with you on what you have said; but it was still off topic.
This discussion should be limited to Biden in this topic, because this topic is about Biden, what part of that don't you understand?
It's a relatively easy concept. A thread has a topic, in this case the topic is Biden's leadership abilities as demonstrated by his actions during an interview Sunday in FL, thus the topic to be disused should be Biden's leadership abilities as demonstrated by his actions during an interview Sunday in FL.
The topic is not how Biden and McCain/Palin have the same leadership abilities, nor how McCain/Palin have avoided air America, nor how McCain/Palin may or may not be angry with each other. Why you would want to make these things the topic of my post instead of starting your own post on these topics I don’t understand.
|
|
|
| |
|
Minuet
|
Oct 27 2008, 02:17 PM
Post #24
|
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
- Posts:
- 36,559
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #2
- Joined:
- May 19, 2003
|
- Admiralbill_gomec
- Oct 27 2008, 02:08 PM
Well, now that we're off topic, what does it have to do with JOE BIDEN refusing to ask a perfectly rational question?
Suppose someone asked John McCain, "So, do you capitalists want to exploit the worker?" Wouldn't that be a perfectly acceptable question? I think so, as silly as I may think it. You are throwing terms around here. It's "rational" to ask one question. Reasonable but silly to ask the other?
Either both questions are rational or both questions are silly. Take your pick.
And watch the video. He did answer the question. He explained what Obama meant by the comment - but obviously some people don't want to listen to that answer.
|
|
|
| |
|
Dandandat
|
Oct 27 2008, 02:20 PM
Post #25
|
Time to put something here
- Posts:
- 17,948
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #34
- Joined:
- August 30, 2003
|
- Minuet
- Oct 27 2008, 01:55 PM
- Admiralbill_gomec
- Oct 27 2008, 01:37 PM
- ImpulseEngine
- Oct 27 2008, 09:53 AM
Interesting interpretation Dan, but mine differs. My interpretation of those events is this. The campaign is in the final 8 days (not counting election day itself) and Obama is the clear front runner. At this point, it makes no strategic sense for them to do anything that is risky. This reporter and station seemed bent on asking questions that were aiming to trip Biden up. At some other point in the campaign when they were still fighting for the lead, Biden would have had to answer those questions because the negative from not answering them could significantly impact the long run. However, at this point in the campaign, the minor negative from not answering those questions is insignificant compared with the potential negative if he answers even just one question poorly. I think it's nothing more than simple strategy and it makes sense to me. It's not at all a reflection on Biden's abilities. Let's face it, ANYONE could trip up. So why should they take that chance this late in the campaign?
Here's my interpretation of the event: The Obama campaign is being petty and vindictive because this interviewer didn't follow the playbook and ask Biden softball questions. I mean, how dare anyone question The Messiah... How is asking if Obama is a Marxist tripping (the admittedly gaffe-tastic) Biden up? He could have said, "No." He might have added, "You are taking things out of context." End of story. Good thing West didn't ask Biden about Obama's 2001 comments on "redistributive wealth." But that's the topic of another thread. Give me a moment.
The Marxist question was silly in the extreme. I mean seriously, does the reporter understand the difference between Marxism and what the Democrats are actually saying? No wonder Biden asked if the reporter was kidding. Not once did Obama say that he felt that everyone in the country deservse an equal share of the pot. Redistribution only means that he wants to address the widening gap between rich and poor and give more people an opportunity to do better. No one is coming and taking people's businesses away or doing anything that will end your way of life. The accusation of Marxism was ridiculous and I fully understand why Biden would not want to patronize a station that has such obvious bias against him. Just like the McCain campaign does not want Palin interviewed by stations they see as having a vested interest in making her look bad. And Biden could have said all of that in responses to the question and easily made a good point. Instead he recoiled and acted childish.
|
|
|
| |
|
Minuet
|
Oct 27 2008, 02:20 PM
Post #26
|
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
- Posts:
- 36,559
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #2
- Joined:
- May 19, 2003
|
- Dandandat
- Oct 27 2008, 02:16 PM
- Minuet
- Oct 27 2008, 01:41 PM
- Dandandat
- Oct 27 2008, 01:03 PM
- Minuet
- Oct 27 2008, 12:19 PM
http://www.thestar.com/News/USElection/article/525030- Quote:
-
Republican tilt: 'maverick' McCain vs. 'rogue' Palin
Lee-Anne Goodman The Canadian Press
WASHINGTON–Facing a deft assault by Democrats and widescale rejection by voters, John McCain and Sarah Palin are circling the wagons and firing inwards at each other with just eight days until the presidential election.
The tattered remains of their ticket were everywhere yesterday, with both McCain and Palin insiders publicly on the attack to hold the other side responsible for their candidate's woes on the campaign trail. One McCain insider said she was "going rogue."
"She is a diva – she takes no advice from anyone," an unnamed McCain adviser told CNN over the weekend. "She does not have any relationships of trust with any of us, her family or anyone else ... also, she is playing for her own future and sees herself as the next leader of the party. Remember: divas trust only unto themselves, as they see themselves as the beginning and end of all wisdom."
Those close to Palin, however, say she has simply tried to break free of a McCain campaign that mishandled her, making her the butt of international jokes in the process.
"The campaign as a whole bought completely into what the Washington media said – that she's completely inexperienced," a close Palin ally told the Politico website.
"Her strategy was to be trustworthy and a team player during the convention and thereafter, but she felt completely mismanaged and mishandled and ill-advised. Recently, she's gone from relying on McCain advisers who were assigned to her to relying on her own instincts."
Palin is apparently most miffed at McCain advisers Nicolle Wallace and Steve Schmidt. It was their decision to limit Palin's media contact to interviews with ABC's Charlie Gibson and a series of chats with CBS's Katie Couric parcelled out over several cringe-worthy days. They proved to be disastrous for both the Alaska governor personally and McCain's campaign.
Wallace sent an emailed response to several news organizations over the weekend: "If people want to throw me under the bus, my personal belief is that the most honourable thing to do is to lie there," she wrote.
In recent weeks, Palin has publicly parted ways with the McCain campaign on various fronts, leading many to speculate she is attempting to distinguish herself from the flailing Arizona senator and forge her own identity in preparation for a run for the White House in 2012.
Among them:
She wondered in an interview with The New York Times why McCain, a self-styled maverick, had deemed off-limits Obama's association with his one-time pastor, the incendiary Rev. Jeremiah Wright; She questioned the use of so-called robocalls by the campaign, calling them annoying; She disagreed with the campaign's decision to pull out of the state of Michigan. These and other departures from the campaign's positions have prompted one McCain insider to suggest Palin is "going rogue."
A Palin associate defended her, saying she is "not good at process questions" and that her comments on Michigan and the robocalls were answers to process questions.
One political observer says it's no wonder if indeed she is going rogue.
"She should sue them for malpractice," said Sam Popkin, author of The Reasoning Voter: Communication and Persuasion in Presidential Campaigns. "They chose her because they needed some energy, they needed a personality, and they turned that personality into an idiot due to their hurried, ad hoc choice of her and their subsequent cluelessness on how to handle her."
The McCain campaign should have figured out who they wanted as their vice-presidential candidate weeks earlier and begun preparing that person for the spotlight long before they announced it, said Popkin, a University of Southern California political science teacher.
"No one could have handled that kind of international attention without any preparation."
But others say many of Palin's unexpected shortcomings forced the McCain campaign to keep her out of the media spotlight.
"Her lack of fundamental understanding of some key issues was dramatic," another McCain source told CNN. The source said it was probably the "hardest" to get her "up to speed than any candidate in history."
Recent polls suggest Palin has been a significant drag on the Republican ticket despite being popular among the party's core supporters, with most of those surveyed saying they have no confidence she has the qualifications to be vice-president.
She's also been dogged with scandal since joining the ticket. She was found guilty in a legislative report of abusing her power as governor in the "Troopergate" scandal over attempts to have her former brother-in-law fired. She is now facing another probe over whether she violated ethics rules in the affair.
Last week it was revealed $150,000 had been spent on clothes for Palin since late August.
Talk about off topic. I would ask why you are so emotionaly invested in this election that you would try to end dicution of a topic subject as you are here. Its just an election and in a week it will all be over. you shouldn't get this wraped up in it. You couldn't rebut what I said so you retreated to the "off topic" excuse. Your point about "leadership" is that it is not shown when someone avoids talking to people who ask them tough questions. Why should this be limited to Biden? This has nothing to do with me being invested in any way in this campaign. I can't even vote in your elections. Do I really need to start another thread to show how pathetic some of the partisanship I see displayed here is? Frankly you are asking me to discuss a topic that I think is a fabrication. Clutching at straws to try and convince people to vote differently. It's terrrible when one leader does something you don't like, but when it is pointed out that your favoured leader has done the same it is suddenly declared off topic? Please!
No I chose not to rebut what you said, I may not have even disagreed with you on what you have said; but it was still off topic. This discussion should be limited to Biden in this topic, because this topic is about Biden, what part of that don't you understand? It's a relatively easy concept. A thread has a topic, in this case the topic is Biden's leadership abilities as demonstrated by his actions during an interview Sunday in FL, thus the topic to be disused should be Biden's leadership abilities as demonstrated by his actions during an interview Sunday in FL. The topic is not how Biden and McCain/Palin have the same leadership abilities, nor how McCain/Palin have avoided air America, nor how McCain/Palin may or may not be angry with each other. Why you would want to make these things the topic of my post instead of starting your own post on these topics I don’t understand. Gee for someone who is so afraid of Marxism you seem to want to use Marxist tactics to limit the discussion here.
If your entire topic is limited to Biden's leadership abilities how is one to determine those abilities without comparison to others? I cannot decide who is a better leader without looking at all the contenders.
|
|
|
| |
|
Dandandat
|
Oct 27 2008, 02:31 PM
Post #27
|
Time to put something here
- Posts:
- 17,948
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #34
- Joined:
- August 30, 2003
|
lol Who said I was afraid of Marxism? I in fact agree with some tenants of the Marxist system. Why you would try to attack me with such a silly accusation, one that isn't even true is hilarious. I think your problem is that you don’t understand that more then one person frequent these boards, all of us with different individual ideas and beliefs. This is the second time in this thread you have tried to accuse me of something better attributed to others here and have very little to do with me. Why is that.
How are you to determine leadership abilities with out refearing to McCain or Palin? By simply talking about leadership abilities – IE has not have a problem doing so through out this thread. Why are you finding it so difficult?
To be clear the topic is not "who is a better leader", I didn’t post that thought anywhere in my posts. I did post the question is Biden a good enough leader. Care to take a stab at getting back on topic?
|
|
|
| |
|
Admiralbill_gomec
|
Oct 27 2008, 02:34 PM
Post #28
|
UberAdmiral
- Posts:
- 26,022
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #5
- Joined:
- August 26, 2003
|
- Minuet
- Oct 27 2008, 02:17 PM
- Admiralbill_gomec
- Oct 27 2008, 02:08 PM
Well, now that we're off topic, what does it have to do with JOE BIDEN refusing to ask a perfectly rational question?
Suppose someone asked John McCain, "So, do you capitalists want to exploit the worker?" Wouldn't that be a perfectly acceptable question? I think so, as silly as I may think it.
You are throwing terms around here. It's "rational" to ask one question. Reasonable but silly to ask the other? Either both questions are rational or both questions are silly. Take your pick. And watch the video. He did answer the question. He explained what Obama meant by the comment - but obviously some people don't want to listen to that answer. Wow, you're really on the defensive.
I said I (you know, ME) consider the question silly, but it is a perfectly rational one to ask. After all, I don't make policy for radio and television stations.
|
|
|
| |
|
ImpulseEngine
|
Oct 27 2008, 02:35 PM
Post #29
|
Admiral
- Posts:
- 9,851
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #7
- Joined:
- August 26, 2003
|
- Admiralbill_gomec
- Oct 27 2008, 02:13 PM
- ImpulseEngine
- Oct 27 2008, 02:03 PM
- Admiralbill_gomec
- Oct 27 2008, 01:37 PM
- ImpulseEngine
- Oct 27 2008, 09:53 AM
Interesting interpretation Dan, but mine differs. My interpretation of those events is this. The campaign is in the final 8 days (not counting election day itself) and Obama is the clear front runner. At this point, it makes no strategic sense for them to do anything that is risky. This reporter and station seemed bent on asking questions that were aiming to trip Biden up. At some other point in the campaign when they were still fighting for the lead, Biden would have had to answer those questions because the negative from not answering them could significantly impact the long run. However, at this point in the campaign, the minor negative from not answering those questions is insignificant compared with the potential negative if he answers even just one question poorly. I think it's nothing more than simple strategy and it makes sense to me. It's not at all a reflection on Biden's abilities. Let's face it, ANYONE could trip up. So why should they take that chance this late in the campaign?
Here's my interpretation of the event: The Obama campaign is being petty and vindictive because this interviewer didn't follow the playbook and ask Biden softball questions. I mean, how dare anyone question The Messiah... How is asking if Obama is a Marxist tripping (the admittedly gaffe-tastic) Biden up? He could have said, "No." He might have added, "You are taking things out of context." End of story. Good thing West didn't ask Biden about Obama's 2001 comments on "redistributive wealth." But that's the topic of another thread. Give me a moment.
The point, AB, is that comparing Obama to a Marxist is an obvious attempt to paint him in that light - one which would not be well received. Otherwise, why didn't she simply ask for clarification on what he meant by "spreading the wealth" if she just wanted to understand more about it? The "spreading the wealth" comment is also a highlight that the McCain campaign has been using in their negative TV and radio ads. And so is Biden's comment predicting that Obama will be tested which was the other question specifically mentioned in the article. But there are apparently more questions too than just those two. I can't watch the video right now so I don't know what they are. But these questions appeared to be just more of the negative attacks and so I think it is smart for Obama's campaign to avoid answering them. I don't care what answer they could give, those that disagree with the philosophies being presented will not be convinced and so Biden's or Obama's words will just be thrown back at them - you know it. Why would they want to subject themselves to a sure losing situation when they are poised to win?
He IE, if the shoe fits... "Why would they want to subject themselves to a sure losing situation when they are poised to win?" Because the Obama campaign refuses to answer hardball questions. I WANT TO KNOW what kind of man could be my president, and if I find out he supports Marxist redistributionist policies I'm going to damned well do everything I can to be sure that everyone and their sheepdog friggin' knows it!!! Stop hiding under your blanket and see your candidate for what he is. If this is what you want (No, I don't mean that vapid "Change" BS) in your candidate, then support him. BUT LOOK AND SEE WHAT HE STANDS FOR and what he wants to do. Take a good, long, HARD look. I have looked and, aside from the low experience issue, I don't see any problem.
Then there's McCain, Mr. infidelity himself who not only cheated on his ex-wife with his current wife, but admitted to cheating on his ex-wife with other women too while stationed abroad. Hmm, cheating sounds familiar for some reason - oh yeah, that was a big deal when Clinton did it and, as I recall, you were quite vocal in your disgust concerning that. Where's your disgust now? You can't impeach someone who isn't yet in office, but wouldn't a refusal to elect him amount to the same? Where are the equivalent cries for that? In fact, speaking of issues not covered in the media, I have heard nothing about this one...
Maybe it's YOU who should take a harder look. And while you're at it, don't forget about Mr. "I don't want to run a negative campaign" who has run a VERY negative campaign at times, has flip flopped about choosing to do so then choosing not to, has "approved this message" with many ads that are outright lies, and who selected Palin as his running mate. Now why did I include that last one? Because Palin is obviously a woman with little if any ethics which is beginning to be proven - e.g., she was recently found guilty of abusing her power as Governor regarding the firing of that state trooper. As Minuet's article shows, she's being non-compliant even with the wishes of the McCain campaign itself - shouldn't she be a team player? It becomes more and more obvious that she wasn't the best choice McCain could have made. So why did he choose her? Obviously, it's because she's a woman and he was looking for the women's vote. So, on the one hand we have McCain making a poor choice - which is a poor reflection on his decision-making ability right off the bat - and on the other we see a total lack of regard for women by his selecting someone not because she has the best qualifications, but merely because she's a woman. That flies in the face of what the women's movement has always stood for which is that people should be chosen not based upon sex, but upon who is most qualified to do the job.
Exactly AB. "If the shoe fits..."
|
|
|
| |
|
Admiralbill_gomec
|
Oct 27 2008, 02:35 PM
Post #30
|
UberAdmiral
- Posts:
- 26,022
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #5
- Joined:
- August 26, 2003
|
- Dandandat
- Oct 27 2008, 02:31 PM
lol Who said I was afraid of Marxism? I in fact agree with some tenants of the Marxist system. Why you would try to attack me with such a silly accusation, one that isn't even true is hilarious. I think your problem is that you don’t understand that more then one person frequent these boards, all of us with different individual ideas and beliefs. This is the second time in this thread you have tried to accuse me of something better attributed to others here and have very little to do with me. Why is that.
How are you to determine leadership abilities with out refearing to McCain or Palin? By simply talking about leadership abilities – IE has not have a problem doing so through out this thread. Why are you finding it so difficult?
To be clear the topic is not "who is a better leader", I didn’t post that thought anywhere in my posts. I did post the question is Biden a good enough leader. Care to take a stab at getting back on topic? I agree.
|
|
|
| |