Once the Democrats decide on thier candidate, Sen. McCains' record of somersaulting down the Halls of Congress will be exposed and he'll wish he was Brian Maverick, the unknown one.

Look guys, John McCain's obit will read...he was a Maverick.

Might as well just grin & bear it.

The media loves saying it. Hell they coined it.

And the theme of the Dems should be, WHICH ONE? Some will get it, some won't. But it may cause people to ask questions about a Maverick.

Look guys, John McCain's obit will read...he was a Maverick.

Yes.  A 1970 Ford Maverick with the top of the gas tank serving as the trunk floor.  It was a very dangerous car, and Gramps McCain is a very dangerous politician.

As much navel-gazing as these Corporate Media Whores engage in, you'd think they would catch on..... they're the ones who steer the public discourse. They can deny it all they want, but the Media perpetuated the Reverend Wright scandal. If they had given it the coverage it warranted, it would have lasted about three days. Their hand-wringing assertion that they are merely responding to the whims of public interest is bullsh*t.

I think that's why the Founding Fathers gave the Press Constitutional protection. In a Democratic Republic, an informed populace is essential to a successful process. Unfortunately, the modern press has sold its soul to Corporate interests..... that's why we elected an empty-suit sockpuppet as leader of the free world..... twice.

Nerzog,

Time to quit moaning about 2000 and 2004.  By my unofficial count, that is about 23,458th time I've read someone complaining about those elections.

Don't worry. Be happy. :-)  

Time to quit moaning about 2000 and 2004.  By my unofficial count, that is about 23,458th time I've read someone complaining about those elections.

A few questions for you, AA:

1. Should Jewish people "quit moaning" about the Holocaust?
2. Should black people "quit moaning" about the way they were treated under Jim Crow?
3. Should Japanese people "quit moaning" about how their people were interred during WWII?
4. Should Native Americans "quit moaning" about how their land, life, and culture were stolen from them?

Edmund Burke once said "All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing."  If we are to restore faith in our voting process, we need to keep the memories of the 2000 and 2004 elections alive, and vow to do everything possible to make sure that debacles like that NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN.

And what does anyyyyy  of that have to do with McCain????????

That would suggest rather a bit of disconent with the current administration then, no?

ps. What do all you progressive posters who defended Rev. Wright have to say now that Obama has flip flopped on disowning Wright?

I thought Obama could no more disown Rev. Wright than disown the black community?

Funny. Maybe I missed it, but I don't see MMFA, or anyone else here for that matter, pointing out this inconsistency.  

After what Wright said the other day, I denounce and reject him and realize he's a publicity hound...and a nut.

Does that satisfy you?

AA, I have to ask, since you seem to be about the only one backing McCain in this, what do you say to this?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/01/flashback-read-mccains-mi_n_99585.html

Is he pandering for political support, or is his senility starting to show? (I'm not making fun of his age, one of the first signs of senility is contradicting yourself)

Right wingers won't worry about McCain until he answers a question at a debate, then walks over to the opposing podium for his rebuttal.

 

Rickyy

You seem to be pretty afaird of the old man.  But I guess when one candidate has a higer negative rating that anyone to ever run for president, and the other has 2 years of experience, I would be worried to.

POV, you be sure to check back here after the first debate between Senator Obama and Senator McCain. I'm putting my dollar on the sharp YOUNG constitutional law professor who is not the son of an admiral and not the husband of the richest woman in AZ. He got his elitism the old fashioned way, he earned it!

I dont care. That was always his decision. I found some of the things he said pretty nutty myself. I just wanted the criticism of Wright to be A) honest and B) about HIM, I dont go for guilt by association.  Wright is an American. He gets to say anything he wants. He then stands for hearing what people think about what he says. That is the way the game is played.

AA, I guess you'd like us to quit complaining about the lies told leading up to the Iraq invasion, as well? I mean, really..... that was so five years ago! Jeez!

As for Jeremiah Wright, my basic position hasn't changed. The "controversy" has always been a media construction, driven largely by the Troglodytes, and has been given about 100 times more attention than it deserves. I defended Wright, but that was before he pulled his little publicity stunt. I don't think Obama had any other choice.

Nice try, though.

I see these groups.

1. Media - Definitely for McCain

2. African American Voters - definitely for Obama

3. White females - (doubtfully) definitely for Clinton.

4. White males - Whatever they were for before. Depending on working-class, educated, making > X $/year etc

5.  Republicans - definitely for McCain

6. Conservatives - 99% for McCain because they hate Clinton and fear what Obama can bring on (anyone saying otherwise is lying)

7. Democrats - Core Democrats, definitely for whoever the nominee is.

8. Liberals - see 7.

9. White / non-white Independents - Will decide the election. 

 

Very polarized electorate thanks to current P & VP (& the previous pair).

Minor correction.

No 3. White females should read White Democratic females.

3a. White Republican females - Whoever their husband/boyfriend/father is for. 

Good point on 3a. I almost barf every time I hear one of these Republican women call Rush Limbaugh and virtually fellate him over the phone. It's repulsive and unseemly. AAAAK!

Good point on 3a. I almost barf every time I hear one of these Republican women call Rush Limbaugh and virtually fellate him over the phone. It's repulsive and unseemly. AAAAK!

Even worse - I heard a guy phone in to Rush's radio pukefest the other day and say that he and his wife home-school their kids, and part of that home-schooling is having the kids listen to Rush's show every day.  The kids even refer to Limbaugh as "Uncle Rush".

To me, that constitutes child abuse.

Holy crap. I've always thought that Rush's sycophants were brainwashed, but I had no idea it was that bad...

Nerzog, you invoke the concept of the corporate media trying to steer (even dictate) the Public Discourse on the presidential campaign (which of course is true), and also you mention how important an informed electorate is to a Democracy (which is also true)...

And the media hacks in the item also speak a little bit of truth, when they state that a sizable fraction of the electorate (a full third, is the wild overestimation of one of the hacks) can be dissauded from the issues in the campaign, and be drawn away into "values" stuff, and "next door neighbor" preferences (the hack specifically said "...if this is an election on the issues, it's a landslide. The Democratic nominee is going to win. If McCain wins, it [will be] ...because people decided ...that they were voting for somebody to be their next-door neighbor")...

And that truth, spoken by the hack, is the sum of the two truths you invoked:

Add an uninformed fraction (nothing near a third I say) of an electorate, so uninformed that they take their eye off the ball, and ignore the issues...

Plus a media hammering away at that fraction of the electorate, portraying one of the candidates as your next door neighbor all right, but a neighbor who hates America (or at least his Pastor does)...

And what you have as a result is the "values" voter: Someone who has lost sight of the issues, and instead prefers whoever the media has steered him to, as a neighbor you'd like to live next door to.

 

Clear enough.

 

This is my gripe: The Democratic candidates themselves actually allow this to happen... not by playing the next door neighbor "values" game (which they do commit that sin), but by allowing that sizable fraction of the electorate to lose sight of the issues.

Example: There is no doubt that 9 out of 10, maybe 19 out of 20 of the American People, can be brought to a respectful listening attentive silence by any of the presidential candidates, when they say the word Iraq (that's how big that issue truly is); and yet, what does Sen. Obama or Sen. Clinton think, about what would be their administration's Foreign Policy, toward Iraq in general, and the Democratically elected Maliki government in particular?

The question is simple, and answerable, and of so much importance that it cannot be ignored...

...and yet it is ignored, and we as an electrorate, have little or no idea how Sen. Clinton or Sen. Obama would answer that question.

And it is in the vacuum of a clear National Policy opinion on such an important issue as that (and a vacuum that also includes many other ignored undescribed unexplained opinions on real and important issues)... it is in that vacuum, that the slightest little wind from an incendiary fool in the pulpit, blows that fraction of the electorate one way, or the other...

The slightest little gaffe, or mispeaking (like the word "bitter"), or the least little insignificant thing (like a flag pin), or even the bodily posture and position of the hands, during the playing of the National Anthem or the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance, becomes a gale-force wind that blows the candidates ship off course...

...simply because the danged thing wasn't anchored, by a loud and clear expression of the issues, of National Policy opinions...

Like: "What would be your administration's Foreign Policy, toward Iraq in general, and the Democratically elected Maliki government in particular?"

 

Do you see what I mean here? Do you see how in such an empty campaign as the candidates themselves give us (so empty as that neither you or I know the Democratic candidate's answer to the simple but all-important question I posed)... and in that vacuum, the electorate can pitched and rolled, one way and the other (like a ship at sea without the substance of any ballast, or anchor, to hold it steady), steered about by idiot stuff like incendiary fools in the pulpit, and flag pins.

And yet, were you to know Sen. Obama's or Sen. Clinton's answer to the Iraq question that I posed, and were satisfied by it, then no fool in the pulpit or any flag pin nonsense, could dissaude you from supporting their candidacy... could dissaude you from the issues... could turn you into an idiot empty-headed "values" voter, seeking a pleasant and personable next door neighbor, instead of the President of the United States and Commander in Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces.

 

"...if this is an election on the issues, it's a landslide. The Democratic nominee is going to win. If McCain wins, it [will be] ...because people decided ...that they were voting for somebody to be their next-door neighbor"

I agree, and it's a shame. I blame in part both Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama, if McCain sneaks in through that back door, as you neighbor.

 

Excellent observation. I think Hillary scored some major points by going on Bill O'Reilly's show and actually arguing policy points with him. It made her look confident and assertive. Some cynical part of me keeps whispering that it was a setup, but that's only wild speculation.

I wish Obama had told Stuffalupogus to shove his flag pin question and refused to answer the other trivial snipes, but I guess he's too afraid of making a mistake. My impression is that he's protecting his lead and running out the clock, which is good strategy, but not very satisfying. Hillary can afford to be more aggressive now because she has little to lose.

A romantisized, narrowly defined image. Several parts of that image have to be stretched, cropped, and normalized to properly aline.

The important part of the image is that he is bucking the neocon/shrub/chenny agenda. Curious from at least two points. The questions of why and how he is a "maverick" to the NSC agenda. Which is partially answered by the second. In that he has over this campaign season he has become alined with the NSC agenda in an almost seamless manner. Yet the maverick image remains, can't you just see him rearing back from a distent mesa, sun gleaning off his teeth. Giving forth a mighty"Oh Chist my back is out!"

Why does he need to be critical of or even mention the fact that McCain is self-promoting his maverick image?  No kidding!

zoom, right over your head...

I don't think so buddy boy.  Right through your head.

"Why does he need to be critical of or even mention the fact that McCain is self-promoting his maverick image?"  -you

"But while citing McCain's purported 'brand' as a 'maverick,' Harwood did not acknowledge his own role in promoting that 'brand.'" -MMfA

Whenever you would like to apologize... 

 

Wow, you really are an idiot. Adult education look into it.

More projection from mr, do you want fries with that. After I PAY the guy to take my stuff to my new car and give him a generous tip, HE takes the shopping cart back to the store with him. If you need to beg someone for some cans to turn in for the change you need to put in the machines at your local porno shop or to buy another short dog of MD 2020 it will have to come from someone else

Oh! When will the violence ever end.

John McCain is far from being a maverick. He spouts only to gain publicity and then contradicts himself a few weeks later. Why has the Charles Keating affair surfaced again with McCain's favortism towards him and the finance industry? His collaboration with the North Vietnamese during the War? His neglect of his Arizona constituents, which I am one, for over 18 months!! His disapproval of the new GI Bill though he is pro-war and his wife's indictment for drug abuse.

Clearly one sided media presentation.

Gramps is, no doubt, getting a free ride from the Media. Will that change once the Democratic primary is decided? We'll see. Another odd phenomenon is the Media's virtual silence on what is perceived as Hillary's "baggage". One of her major selling points is that she's been in public life for 30 years..... that means 30 years of Right Wing opposition research. Where is all of this stuff? Does anyone really believe that the Troglodytes have forgotten all about it, and suddenly admire Hillary for her spunk? Don't you believe it.

"John McCain is far from being a maverick. He spouts only to gain publicity and then contradicts himself a few weeks later. Why has the Charles Keating affair surfaced again with McCain's favortism towards him and the finance industry? His collaboration with the North Vietnamese during the War? His neglect of his Arizona constituents, which I am one, for over 18 months!! His disapproval of the new GI Bill though he is pro-war and his wife's indictment for drug abuse."

Of course you are and idiot.  What was his collaboration with the north vietnamese?  Care to expand on your loonely left theory?  I doubt it.  You just cant deal with the fact that the man is a war hero, and likely the next president.  So you spend to much time on Move on and the daily kos, because they speak your language of the radical left.  Then again, with the NY Times and PBS, CNN, ABC, and CBS it is all liberal all the time.  All we need now is Dan Rather to come back with some more fake documents, and we can have another liberal news event.   

I'm still waiting for all that liberal media to weigh in on their collective conduit to Rumsfeld's brain via numerous retired professional patriots.

I see no championing of liberal/progressive issues in the media. Give us a couple of examples. I can give plenty that, regardless of import, never seem to make it to the liberal media.

I just found this little goodie by blogging "John McCain scandal".  I wonder what's happening with THIS story....

http://www.americablog.com/2008/02/john-mccains-other-scandal-its-actually.html