MArooned: Yeah, Tell Us How That Works For You...

Monday, June 30, 2008

Yeah, Tell Us How That Works For You...

McCain a hero, but lacks command experience

Yep. You read that right. The Obama campaign is questioning John McCain's experience.

Let's see how far this one gets...

That is all.

21 comments:

TOTWTYTR said...: I'm speechless. I guess this election cycle, unlike last election cycle, veterans aren't to be revered for their service.; June 30, 2008 at 1:08 PM
Anonymous said...: Yeah. When I think of the steadfast respect past veteran Presidential candidates received I am shocked I tell you....SHOCKED! by this turn of events :-)

Nobody can disrespect a military man more than a fellow military man.

I guess it is part of that honor code thingy.; June 30, 2008 at 2:08 PM
Jay G said...: I didn't even get that far into it, to be honest. To hear someone, anyone, from Barack "8 years in IL state senate, 4 years in US Senate, most of which were spent campaigning for president" Obama talking about another candidate's experience was just so breathtakingly hypocritical that I lost all focus after that...; June 30, 2008 at 2:33 PM
Bruce said...: It's not the amount of experience that matters. It's the amount of Hopenchangen that comes with it, apparently.; June 30, 2008 at 3:38 PM
Anonymous said...: It was retired General Wesley Clark that said it and all he said was that getting shot down and taken POW does not automatically qualify you as President of the United States.

And he is absolutely right.

Being 35 years old and a natural born citizen of the United States are the only two requirements the founders thought necessary for a person to be President.

No requirement at all to drop bombs on folks that you don't know for reasons that cannot be explained.

Quite frankly I was disappointed that Obama renounced and denounced the comments. Read the transcripts. There is nothing there to denounce or renounce.

This general election is going to be lots of fun.; June 30, 2008 at 4:56 PM
Jay G said...: And Obama's sum total "experience" amounts to 8 years in the Chicago political machine as a tool of Richard Daley and a grand total of three and a half years in the US Senate, two of which have been spent campaigning.

He is the **LAST** person to be casting aspersions as to *ANY* political candidates experience of lack thereof, seeing as how he barely has more experience than ***I*** do.

Of ***COURSE*** he denounced the remarks. Do you honestly think he wanted to FACE them? Hell no, he'd rather toss ol' Wes "Kosovo" Clark under the bus just like Jeremiah Wright, Michael Pflueger, Tony Rezko, and Jim Johnson.

Hate to burst your bubble about Obama, Buck, but he's as much of a politician as McCain/Bush/Clinton/et al. He'd throw his own mother to the wolves if he thought it would help get him elected.

Business as usual. Nothing more, nothing less.; June 30, 2008 at 5:18 PM
RW said...: Read the transcripts. There is nothing there to denounce or renounce.

Eh, neither was there anything in Rush Limbaugh's transcript on the ESPN football show that was worth denouncing or renouncing, which was probably why Michael Irvin said "Rush is right" immediately after Rush finished talking. Then, the commentary began and the "let's talk about the intent" & psychoanalyzing went forth.

Much like when Kerry & Edwards went on the planned expedition of making sure everyone knew that Dick Cheney had a gay daughter by emphasizing "GAAAAAAAAAY DAUGHTER" during the debates, we all know what Wes Clark was doing. We know what's up.

And I know what the spinners are doing by trying to prop up Clark: playing foot soldiers for the cause.

Stuff like this would actually make me consider voting for McCain, which isn't on my agenda at this moment....

Quite frankly I was disappointed that Obama renounced and denounced the comments.

You should be getting used to that by now, shouldn't you, buddy? He's been doing the "that's not the person that I knew" thing on a weekly basis for quite a while, now, beginning first with his grandmama.

Hate to burst your bubble about Obama, Buck, but he's as much of a politician as McCain/Bush/Clinton/et al.

From what I'm starting to gather, he's nowhere near the pol that Clinton or Bush is/was. This guy is looking like a poor excuse for a lightweight, to tell you the truth. He's going to need the press to serve as his PR campaign throughout in order for his sheer lameness as an actual pol to come shining through.

He's looking more and more like the Milli Vanilli candidate every day.; June 30, 2008 at 7:02 PM
RW said...: er, NOT to come shining through.

Seems like a decent chap, but when I read his IL questionnaire (which, of course, he's trying to run away from, which actually cemented to me that he's no less a liar than they all are) I knew all I needed to know.

Let's all sit back & watch him try to tack back towards the center......; June 30, 2008 at 7:05 PM
SpeakerTweaker said...: No requirement at all to drop bombs on folks that you don't know for reasons that cannot be explained.

You wouldn't by any chance be ON the Obama campaign team, would you? All that was missing there was something about being a baby-killer.

Geez.

Renounce, denounce, renounce, denounce. For Crying Out Loud, has he or anyone working for him said anything that he actually stuck with?

No offense, but if you think there's one iota of truth to anything Obama says, you need to have your head examined.

And don't accuse me of supporting McCain, either. 20 years ago, he'd be a Democrat.

Only reason I'll vote for him is because 20 years ago, Obama would be a fucking communist.

Maybe I'm just not progressive.

tweaker; June 30, 2008 at 9:53 PM
RW said...: No offense, but if you think there's one iota of truth to anything Obama says, you need to have your head examined.

I can't speak for Buck, but I'm not sure that's the case. It's more akin to "the GOP once stood for smaller government, but look at what they did with spending when they actually got power between '01 and '05". Can't argue with him on that one, that prescription drug plan is going to break us, folks.

I'm not for Obama, in part, because he (and Pelosi and Reid) doesn't think they spent (and especially, taxed) ENOUGH.

There is no conservative or smaller gov't leadership in the federal gov't, folks. McCain can point to individual spending plans that he's good on (pork busting & the like) but he's pro-amnesty and was against the Bush tax cuts.

In short: The Dems are going to have huge majorities in both houses and best-case scenario is that we're really screwed.

Remember the Clinton middle-class-tax-cuts turned tax hikes? Uh-huh. Coming soon, to a 1099 near you.

The deficit is your fault, after all.; July 1, 2008 at 6:09 AM
SpeakerTweaker said...: I can't speak for Buck, but I'm not sure that's the case.

Allow me to retort. I'm sure that there is some truth to some of what Obama says. The crap that he'll dig up on McCain, for instance. There may be that iota of truth I spoke of in some of his mudslinging.

Like I said, I'm not for McCain. And I agree, McCain's voting record shows that he's as much a conservative as I am Mary, Queen of Scots (hint: I am NOT, in fact, Mary, Queen of Scots;). Marko Kloos has made it quite clear on more than one occasion that the primary difference between Republicans and Democrats these days is which end of the Bill of Rights they wipe their asses with.

I'm not for McCain. But I'm sure as hell against Obama.

As far as experience goes, well, it's just this simple: neither of them has any experience being PUSA, but both have plenty of experience shitting all over our rights.

tweaker; July 1, 2008 at 10:09 AM
Jay G said...: Amen, brother Tweaker.

Voting for McCain is the lesser of two evils, IMHO.

But juuuuuuust barely.

Personally, I think this may be the year for Cthulhu - why vote for the lesser of two evils? *g*; July 1, 2008 at 10:28 AM
Anonymous said...: It is true. Obama ain't the Messiah. He is a typical politician. So I have a choice between two typical politicians.

I am going with Obama.

I heard 'em say on Morning Joe this morning that "Clark was making a valid point just not a politically smart one".

In other words, "Don't piss off the rubes!"

And I know that is good political advice. It is still an insult. But Obama has taken the position that the comments were out of line.

That makes him more like you than me.

And I'm the rube voting for him ;-); July 1, 2008 at 11:47 AM
Jay G said...: Buck,

I never said the comments were out of line; truth be told, I agree with the comments.

What floored me was the unmitigated gall of someone in the Obama camp questioning anyone's experience, given that Barack Obama is, in 220+ years of American History, the least-qualified person to ever run for President.

It was an issue in 2000 - Bush was DOGGED about his experience, or lack thereof. There were jokes about his foreign exposure being limited to having breakfast at IHOP. Ron Reagon quipped that Bush was the least qualified person to ever run for President.

And now we have Barack Obama, with his 8 years in a state senate and 3 years in the US senate, zero leadership experience, questioning John McCain's bona fides to run for President.

And the media is just sitting back and letting him.

That infuriates me.

The spin now? Obama is defending his patriotism.

Un. Fucking. Real.

Hell, I'm surprised he didn't call McCain a racist.; July 1, 2008 at 11:56 AM
RW said...: I never said the comments were out of line;

Just as long as no one mentions Obama's middle name. :); July 1, 2008 at 12:34 PM
Anonymous said...: I think if you look back you will find out that lack of experience has dogged just about every candidate.

Until you have been a President how can you have experience being a President?

As I have said before, the founders figured being 35 and a natural born citizen would be enough so it is enough for me.

Everything else is just fluff.

And I kinda like the name "Hussein". It has a nice, globalist, new world order ring to it ;-); July 2, 2008 at 12:39 PM
Comrade Misfit said...: But gee, wasn't it OK to question John Kerry's military service and his qualifications in 2004?

Or are the rules different for Republicans and Democrats?

"You sow what you reap." The GOP set the rules of trashing the military service of veterans, including Max Cleland. Now they're upset that the same tactics are being applied to their guys?

Cry me a river, guys.; July 2, 2008 at 12:42 PM
Jay G said...: Yeah, 'cuz, it's not like the Clinton campaign impugned the service of George Bush or Bob Dole.

Or the Dukakis campaign bashing Dan Quayle's National Guard service during 'Nam (when Dukakis himself received numerous deferments in Korea).

Please. Spare the hand-wringing. Despite the media's best intentions, history did, in fact, NOT begin yesterday.

It's politics. It's supposed to be nasty. I'm just surprised at the bold hypocrisy of Obama's camp talking about another candidate's lack of experience is all.; July 2, 2008 at 2:49 PM
Comrade Misfit said...: I don't disagree, Jay (and you could have included the GOP's bashing of Clinton as a "draft dodger" while ignoring Bush's "rich kid draft dodging" if you wanted), but let's get real about this: The GOP does not get to call Obama's experience into question while putting questions about McCain's experience off-limits.

Ain't going to happen this time around. After two campaigns of being shelled by Rovian smear tactics (and McCain also knows what being on the receiving end of that game is like, witness Bush's "McCain has an illegitimate black baby" rumors of `00), the Dems are spoiling for this fight. The GOP is not going to get away with the "we play nasty, you play nice" game this time around.

So, people, spare me the umbrage about questioning McCain's experience. Politics ain't beanbag anymore.; July 2, 2008 at 4:35 PM
RW said...: Let's start with A: The GOP set the rules of trashing the military service of veterans, including Max Cleland. Now they're upset that the same tactics are being applied to their guys?

I'm in Georgia and I've voted for Max Cleland during my lifetime, so please be sure to take this the right way, but you don't know what you're talking about. No one trashed Max Cleland, you're forwarding an urban legend. During the last debate, Saxby Chambliss went out of his way to applaud Cleland's service.

Again, urban legend. If you want more, I can supply, including the commercial (trust me, you don't want to continue this....I'm right, you're wrong. One can still be a Democrat/liberal and accept that the whole 'they smeared the poor cripple' campaign was complete BS, if one seeks honesty).

As Rambo said, "let it go".

It's a loser for ya.

B. and you could have included the GOP's bashing of Clinton as a "draft dodger" while ignoring Bush's "rich kid draft dodging" if you wanted

Actually, I recall back in '88 when the Democrats were going after Dan Quayle for not serving in Vietnam....that seems to have been the first time that the "yeah, but YOU DIDN'T SERVE IN VIETNAM" card was played. Oh, and one more thing, Clinton was actually drafted.

Yeah, he was.

The GOP is not going to get away with the "we play nasty, you play nice" game this time around.

Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, Linda Tripp, Dan Quayle and Ken Starr will be interested in seeinghow the always kind and lapdoggish Democrats will finally look when they stop playing nice.

Paula Jones had no comment as she was dragging a hundred dollar bill through a trailer park.

Seriously, is there any worn cliche' that you didn't use? Not one independent thought came through at all?; July 3, 2008 at 3:02 PM
RW said...: Hey, EBMF, clicked your profile linky & checked out your site. To borrow from Renee Zellewegger, you had me at "Rethug".

Deep.; July 3, 2008 at 4:09 PM