Journal pudge's Journal: Lies about McCain 7
I will be glad when the Democratic nomination fight is over, so we can focus more on the general election. Obama and Clinton are getting free rides on their far left platforms, while being free to frame the public perception about John McCain with lies.
Something I've been hearing for awhile now, but has really picked up steam in recent days, is that McCain would be a "third term of George Bush," and that McCain is no longer the "maverick" that he used to be and that he has been "hijacked" by the right wing. What they mean by that is all lies.
They mean that McCain would represent a continuation of Bush's "failed policy in Iraq," when, in fact, we only started to see successes in post-invasion Iraq when Bush's policies matched what McCain had been saying all along, about increased troop levels and holding gained territory and so on.
They mean that McCain "wants to stay in Iraq indefinintely," which as we all know is false. This is the basis for the DNC ad, which falsely implies that McCain thinks being at war for 100 is acceptable, when in fact, McCain said precisely the opposite.
They mean that McCain is in favor of tax cuts for the rich (that is, extending existing cuts), even though he voted, and spoke out, against those tax cuts previously. But they are entirely aware of the fact that McCain will not vote for raising taxes -- especially when the economy is bad -- even if he was against the cut in the first place. Indeed, if he voted to raise taxes now, he would be pandering.
They mean that McCain is "in favor of torture," because he voted to not force the CIA to follow the Army Field Manual. That's about as honest as saying that I am a vegetarian because I don't eat bear meat. The Army Field Manual is not the only means to be against torture. He has steadfastly been opposed to torture, but just thinks, and for good reason, that the Army Field Manual is not the best tool to use for the CIA. He has reiterated -- and the law backs him up -- that the CIA is not allowed to use torture.
They mean that McCain panders to "right-wing Christians," simply because he has talked to them without attacking them. Apparently it is OK for Obama to want to do that with Iran and North Korea, but not for McCain to want to do that with Americans. Frankly, in 2000, I thought McCain was being extremely immature when he attacked some on the "religious right," and am glad that he has grown. You can be cordial and even friendly to people you disagree with.
They mean that McCain has "flip-flopped" on immigration. This is not true, at all. In all of his public speeches, McCain has never said he was wrong about immigration (much to the chagrin of many conservatives). What he has said is that he recognizes that his plan is politically infeasible. There's too much opposition. He hasn't changed his mind about what is best, but he realizes he needs to change his actions in order to make progress. This is what an intelligent politician does.
Pretty much everything that the left is saying about McCain is lies. It's not unexepcted, of course, but it is disappointing. As with the AARP in the previous post
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
I consider this more feature than bug (Score:2)
Actually, the mere presence of a pack of 'Super Delegates', here to ensure the party adheres to Correct Thought, does an effective job of that already.
Never mind.
moof (Score:1)
Why do you think anything will be different? John Kerry continued to get a free ride -- his far-Left voting record never (was allowed to) come up. It's not like the news media will suddenly cease becoming 9x% Liberal, or will decide to start acting professional and execute their job duties in good faith all of a sudden, after the
Re: (Score:2)
I will be glad when the Democratic nomination fight is over, so we can focus more on the general election. Obama and Clinton are getting free rides on their far left platforms, ...
Why do you think anything will be different? John Kerry continued to get a free ride -- his far-Left voting record never (was allowed to) come up.
It came up a LOT more than Obama's or Hillary's. Plus, they were running against an incumbent, which means that Bush's record is much more of an issue. Kerry was running AGAINST Bush, not FOR himself. The Democrats are trying to do the same thing now, hence trying to make McCain into an incumbent, hence "a third Bush term."
If you believe what he's saying now (I don't), like about taxes, and the border, and judges, and I'm sure others (I'm not really following his campaign), then he definitely has been hijacked by the right-wing and transformed from a moderate into a Conservative. He's talking tougher and sounding more like a typical Republican nowadays.
Nope. His views on immigration/the border HAVE NOT CHANGED. His views on judges HAVE NOT CHANGED. His views on taxes HAVE NOT CHANGED. These are the lies the Democrats are tellin
Re: (Score:1)
That's hard to fathom, because as I recall it came up about, oh, zero times, and zero is about as far from a LOT more than anything else as you can get.
Nope. His views on immigration/the border HAVE NOT CHANGED.
That's what I'm afraid of. But he feigns to have changed his views, as if now he is strongly pro- sealing the borders. And that's what the other side is taking advantage of, and fairly so.
Age and maturity are not necessarily related, obviously.
Well, if
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. His views on immigration/the border HAVE NOT CHANGED.
That's what I'm afraid of.
I know that. And that's fine. I am just saying, he isn't flip-flopping on any of these issues. He has a few flip-flops, everyone does. Maybe a little bit on ethanol or something. But not on this.
But he feigns to have changed his views, as if now he is strongly pro- sealing the borders.
Well, no, he has always been in favor of upping border security. His proposals have always done that. However, there were two problems: they did not GUARANTEE the security would be implemented, and they would not have done security FIRST, but simultaneously. So being in favor of improved border security is
Right-wing political slants and other faux pax (Score:2)
Obama and Clinton are getting free rides on their far left platforms...
Reality check: there is NO left wing in the US, much less a "far left". The minute the country starts increasing taxes on the rich and middle class to pay for decent schooling and health care then I will contend that the US has gotten into the centre of the left-right ideology 'language'. But I digress, using vague and controversial terms like "left" and "right-wing" is what I would expect from an American journalist, but not something I would expect from a serious Slashdot user or editor. One can argue th
Re: (Score:2)
Obama and Clinton are getting free rides on their far left platforms...
Reality check: there is NO left wing in the US, much less a "far left".
Incorrect on both counts.
The minute the country starts increasing taxes on the rich and middle class to pay for decent schooling and health care then I will contend that the US has gotten into the centre of the left-right ideology 'language'.
Um, all you're doing here is saying the left is not as successful as you want to be, not that they do not exist, so this does not support your assertion anyway.
But I digress, using vague and controversial terms like "left" and "right-wing" is what I would expect from an American journalist, but not something I would expect from a serious Slashdot user or editor.
Um, so how can you say there is no left wing in the U.S., if the term is "vague," presumably, too vague to be have a useful definition such that it could be identified? Honestly. You directly imply the U.S. is right-wing, and then say those terms are too vague to be useful. That kind of hypocrisy is not something I woul