Coming off an inferior performance at the Saddleback debate, the Obama camp is saying McCain must have “cheated” because he seemed so well-prepared.
Maybe McCain seemed so well-prepared, because he simply is…
and Obama is not.
You are currently browsing articles tagged McCain.
The Obama European Tour says it had originally planned to visit wounded American servicemen and women at the U.S. Army hospital at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, but scrubbed it for political reasons. The European leg of Senator Obama’s overseas trip, not considered a Congressional Delegation (as was his trip to the Middle East) is funded solely by his campaign and he felt that visiting American wounded would appear to be viewed as political opportunism.
Obama advisors explained,
“We learned from the Pentagon [Wednesday] night that the visit would be viewed … as a campaign event. Senator Obama did not want to have a trip to see our wounded warriors perceived as a campaign event…” [therefore,] “The senator decided out of respect for these servicemen and women that it would be inappropriate to make a stop to visit troops at a U.S. military facility as part of a trip funded by the campaign”
The McCain camp staunchly disagreed and criticized Obama’s decision:
“Barack Obama is wrong,” … “It is never ‘inappropriate’ to visit our men and women in the military.”
For Barack Obama, it’s inappropriate to do something that he can’t get any political mileage out of. He was afraid of the appearance of politicizing the troop visit and didn’t want the headache. Of course, he could have paid a visit to Landstuhl without cameras and reporters in tow. He could have respected the servicemen and women with a private visit to thank them for their service and sacrifice. But, no, that would be inappropriate.
So, instead of visiting American wounded, Obama remained in Berlin.
(and slept in, no doubt).
MORE: The American Pundit; RedState; Wake up America; Hot Air: here and here
UPDATE: McCain blasts Obama on canceling troop visit!
Failed Democratic presidential candidate and retired General Wesley Clark, a former Hillary Clinton and now Barack Obama supporter, chided John McCain on his lack of command experience:
“In the matters of national security policy making, it’s a matter of understanding risk” … “It’s a matter of gauging your opponents and it’s a matter of being held accountable. John McCain’s never done any of that in his official positions.” … “He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee and he has traveled all over the world, but he hasn’t held executive responsibility.” … “That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded — that wasn’t a wartime squadron.”
So Clark, I suppose Obama possesses the requisite command experience? You’re a fool and I believe it wouldn’t matter who was running on the Republican ticket, you’d hold the same opinion. Your comments on the The Huffington Post give away your left-leaning bias:
“Barack had the judgment to oppose the war in Iraq before it began, and he is ready to bring our troops home and end the occupation of Iraq in a responsible way. John McCain has said that American troops should be willing to stay in Iraq for 100 years.”
This is the same spin thats been circulating for months. Certainly Obama may have opposed the war before it began, but in what capacity did he offer his opposition? He certainly wasn’t a member of the Senate at that time. After all, he wasn’t elected until November 2004, a year after the Iraq war began. It’s easy to say you oppose something, when you’re not held to account for your position. (incidently, Hillary Clinton supported the war in an official capacity and you supported her candidacy before she dropped out, leaving you with Obama. Doesn’t that make you a hypocrite?) And sure, McCain said we could be in Iraq for 100 years, in the same context that we’ve peacefully ensured regional stability in countries like Korea and Germany for more than half a decade.
Your comments are half-truths and only serve to mislead. I believe you know this and that gives me significant insight into your character. Sadly, you have no integrity.
It’s no big surprise that Barack Obama has decided to forgo accepting public campaign financing and the monetary restrictions it imposes. After all, Obama’s record fundraising literally puts all the other candidates to shame. Still, he did agree, just last year, in writing, to
“aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.”
This means that in addition to being a liar, Barack Obama is also a hypocrite. When hearing of the news of the latest Obama flip-flop, John McCain said he would still take public financing and of Obama, he “said he would stick to his word. He didn’t.”
So, why did Obama back out of the deal? The system! BHO said,
It’s not an easy decision, and especially because I support a robust system of public financing of elections,” … “But the public financing of presidential elections as it exists today is broken, and we face opponents who’ve become masters at gaming this broken system.”
WOW!
Obama supports the system, but now, all of a sudden, it’s broken. That’s convenient! Then why, wonders Ed Morrissey, hasn’t he “lifted a finger to fix it during his three years in the Senate?” Good question! However, in this flip-flop, Obama is actually backpedalling on his own proposal,
“I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election. My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election.”
And John McCain agreed to this!
Democracy 21, a political watchdog group dedicated to removing the influence of private funding in elections voiced their disappointment at Obama’s decision:
“We had hoped and expected that Senator Obama would stick with the public pledge he made to accept public financing and spending limits for the presidential general election, if he was nominated, and if his Republican opponent also agreed to accept public financing and spending limits for the general election. These conditions have been met.”
MaCain says its a matter of trust and he’s right. Who will you trust to represent the little guy? The candidate who was funded by every American’s tax dollars or the candidate who was financed by private donors? Who will the candidate owe a debt to? For the former, it’s the American taxpayer, but for the latter, look for the highest bidder!
MORE: Webloggin calls out Obama on lies! So does Hot Air! Wake up America does, too! As does the Right Wing Nut House! And The American Pundit!
In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court voted to give detainees at Guantanamo Bay the right to challenge their detention in U.S. courts. According to the courts decision, the detainees could not be denied the constitutional right of habeas corpus. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, stating,
“The costs of delay can no longer be borne by those who are held in custody. The detainees in these cases are entitled to a prompt habeas corpus hearing.”
The court’s dissenting opinion was provided by Justice Antonin Scalia who wrote that
“America is at war with radical Islamists” and that “the nation will live to regret what the court has done today”.
Although both John McCain and Barack Obama have vowed to close Gitmo, McCain indicated that he was not happy about the court’s decision. Agreeing with the dissenting judges, McCain considers the detainees to be unlawful combatants and not American citizens.
He’s right.
We’re engaged in a war that is unprecedented in the history of our nation. We’re not fighting a tangible enemy, but rather an idea: terrorism. I wrote about this on the day Saddam Hussein was hanged. This is the result of a prolonged war with limited objectives. Clausewitz said,
“Never engage the same enemy for too long, or he will adapt to your tactics.”
We see that here. We’ve given the enemy the opportunity to use our own legal system against us. They’ve seen that this is one area that we’re vulnerable and are slowly taking the high ground. Soon we will lose this war, unless we can orchestrate a decisive victory. Our problem lies in just exactly what is our definition of “victory”
MORE: Hot Air
After cautioning against any sweeping government housing-crisis bailout, Presidential-hopeful John McCain proposes a–well, how would you describe it?–a sweeping government housing-crisis bailout. McCain’s plan would cost taxpayers $3 to $10 billion and “would allow certain homeowners whose houses are worth less than their mortgages to apply for assistance.” In addition, “their lenders would agree to write off part of the loan. In return, the Federal Housing Administration would guarantee the new loan.” McCain estimates his plan will help 200,000 to 400,000 “deserving homeowners” whose adjustable rate mortgages are resetting at unaffordable levels.
Whatever happened to individual responsibility? After all, just a couple weeks ago Senator McCain said,
“I have always been committed to the principle that it is not the duty of government to bail out and reward those who act irresponsibly, whether they are big banks or small borrowers.”
Alas, the man who said he “will not play election year politics with the housing crisis” is doing just that: giving in to political expediency. Disappointing, indeed.
MORE:
Michelle Malkin weighs in and has some commentary on the “subprime boondoggle” the Senate passed this afternoon.
So the Iowa results are in and Republican Mike Huckabee and Democrat Barack Obama are the big winners. This will surely shake things up a bit considering the enormous amount of money Mitt Romney dolled-out on his campaign (the ratio of money spent by Romney compared to Huckabee is roughly 17:1) and Hillary Clinton’s once commanding lead in the polls.
What happened?
Simple, the Republican caucus-goers voted for Huckabee’s “values.” Christians accounted for more than half of the Republican voters, citing Huckabee as someone who shares their values. Meanwhile, bringing about change was at the forefront of the Obama campaign, and was touted by Democratic voters as the most important attribute in a presidential
candidate.
It’ll be interesting to see what happens in the upcoming primaries. Clinton and Obama are virtually neck-and-neck in New Hampshire and another poor showing will likely put a pretty big dent in her campaign. I expect she’ll change gears a little and peddle more “change” to the voters. For the Republicans, Romney and McCain are about even, and Huckabee will face a greater challenge. Social and religious issues will probably take a backseat to national security and taxes.
What about the other candidates?
Republicans: Rudy Giuliani devoted little time to Iowa, choosing instead to focus on the larger electoral states like Florida. I believe his popularity will increase significantly in the weeks to come. Fred Thompson, who surged at the last minute in Iowa, will more than likely concede the nomination within the next month or so and endorse McCain.
Democrat John Edwards although taking second place in Iowa, essentially tied Clinton. He’ll continue to take votes from Hillary with his own change message. I believe he’ll ultimately concede and back Clinton.
The coming weeks will be very interesting indeed!
[ + ]
Recent Comments