Comments Posted By Surabaya Stew
Displaying 191 To 200 Of 255 Comments
Bald Ninja, this upcoming debate is not an event that has suffered for a lack of advertisement. (Thank you Tim for reminding us of the EARLY start the debate has had.) I'm sure all the Senators and Representatives will understand if McCain needs some time away. It's all part of the job of running for President of the United States.
Frankly, nobody really expects Obama or McCain to take a leading role in the negations, since neither one of them chairs any relevant committees. Only a very few critical events (outbreak of war, major earthquake) justify shutting down a presidential debate. I simply don't believe that this crisis measures up. If McCain had not proposed to cancel or postpone the debate, it's hard to believe the average American or the MSN would criticize the candidates for holding the debate anyway.
Comment Posted By Surabaya Stew On 25.09.2008 @ 22:45
Carolynp, the solution is to leave Washington at 5pm and fly down to Ole Miss for the 9pm debate. After it is over, fly back to Washington for an extended weekend of work. Why is this a problem or Obama or McCain? An 8 hour pause for an event that has been scheduled for months is impossible? Obama is just being lazy and McCain is being a real prick over this.
Comment Posted By Surabaya Stew On 25.09.2008 @ 20:18
A real man would fly to Washington to handle the crisis AND do the debate on Friday. Why is this beyond the ability of either candidate?
Comment Posted By Surabaya Stew On 25.09.2008 @ 17:30
OBAMA SUPPORTERS UNDERCUT CANDIDATE'S CRITIQUE OF MCCAIN
Who gives a damn what Joe Biden is saying? The chances of the Republicans using Biden's "lies" in a campaign ad is nil, since nobody except pundits and political junkies pay any attention to him. By contrast, can anybody imagine the Democrats not using “the fundamentals of our economy are strong" in a commercial? McCain made a gaffe, that's all. Doesn't matter how "right" he is, the timing of his statement is bad.
Comment Posted By Surabaya Stew On 16.09.2008 @ 16:43
I PREFER THE 'PROM DRESS' ANALOGY MYSELF
Frankly, I dislike it when any politician plays the victim card. This is nothing more than a bit of hyped-up over-sensitivity. Obama and Hillary played this mantra early every day during the primary, and it appears to have risen its ugly head again. God help us all...
Comment Posted By Surabaya Stew On 10.09.2008 @ 23:43
OBAMA PLAYING HARDBALL - THE CHICAGO WAY
Thank you Chuck Tuscan for making the point about this jerk Ayers more eloquently than I have been able to. By the way, as a registered "Blank" voter myself, I also feel relieved not to have to carry the water for any political party. Naturally, a bit of water-carrying is done for each individual candidate I support, but I try to be honest and open-minded about it.
As for asserting that past elections should set the standard for this election, I meant no such thing. However, one can't argue that Clinton was more qualified than Bush Sr. in 1992, or that Bush Jr. was more qualified than Gore in 2000. In both cases, the less qualified candidate won; nobody will seriously assert the opposite. While my statement that Dole in 1996 and Kerry in 2004 were more qualified than Clinton and Bush Sr. may be open to question, a good case can be made to prove that I am correct. Looking back at past elections is a highly imperfect study, but it can be illuminating.
Furthermore, Obama's drop in the polls has no definitive cause behind it, but it could be largely due to dissatisfied Hillary supporters. Again, i have heard nothing to support that Ayers is a major or minor factor in the changing mood of the voters towards McCain, which is why I question the wisdom of making it a major deal. Is it a point against Obama? Yes, but it is 1 of 100 that could be made, not at all a knockout blow. (Aside from the Reverend White, Obama has has no potential campaign ending moments.)
Michael B., who has less qualifications; a man with 6 years as Texas Governor, or a man with 8 years in the Illinois State Senate and 4 years in the US Senate? Exactly, so give us a break on Obama being the least qualified candidate in history! At least, it is debatable subject.
Finally, the USA has indeed been too close to the House of Saud since 1945; I don't forgive ANY president for that association. We have done so much for these disgusting people, (I don't mean the people of the KSA, just their rulers) and we are being screwed royally by them. However, Bush Jr. takes Saudi love to a whole new level; he and the entire Bush family have been tight with them for decades, and our foreign policy these past 7.5 years reflects that. I am hopeful that Obama or McCain will change our relationship with them, but am sadly confident that we will remain too close for comfort with the KSA for many years to come.
Comment Posted By Surabaya Stew On 27.08.2008 @ 15:18
Thank you all for your comments. My point was not the nature of Obama's association with Ayers, nor a direct comparison with the "KEATING FRICKING 5", only that a lot of time and effort seems to be directed on what is in my opinion, a minimal scandal based on past associations that have no direct bearing on any of Obama's political platform.
To answer Michael B., yes, I do think it was poor long-term judgement, albeit done for short-term gain. Enough to disqualify him? Not after Clinton and Bush Jr. have lowered the standards of the presidency! After those 2 jokers winning 4 elections over more qualified candidates, it is hard to talk about Obama's thin resume or dumb sayings as being a serious handicap to the Oval Office. The only thing that will bring him down is character assassination.
Wouldn't the interests of Republicans and Conservatives would be better served by focusing on something about Obama that really matters in the minds of most voters? Asking an Independent or undecided American that they should be concerned about a co-founder of the Weather Underground hanging with Obama apparently doesn't seem to register. If the charge were ever going to stick, it should have done so by now. (Obama met Ayers in 1995, apparently with their last meeting coming in 2002, so a "20+ year relationship" seems a bit of a stretch.) By all means this is a valid question to ask, but I refuse to believe that an America who forgave our president for his close and unwise associations with the House of Saud and other terrorists is going to get worked up about this.
Comment Posted By Surabaya Stew On 27.08.2008 @ 01:25
For a long time, I have been confused as to why the connection between Obama and Ayers has been brought up so many times on this blog. The easy explanation is that the Ayers connection is a straw man argument against Obama, but with a man as intelligent as Rick, such a scenario seems so one-dimensional. In my opinion, this is a wing-nut argument, being repeated by a blogger who is clearly better than that. After all, does anybody serious hold McCain morally accountable for being friendly with the Keating 5? Of course not, since he didn't do anything wrong. (If only we could hold Bush accountable for his friendship with the House of Saud!) The American voter may be persuaded to vote against Obama on many issues, but don't believe that the past sins of an associate will disqualify a politician automatically.
If I may be bold, the only thing that makes sense in explaining this (and a number of other posts) is that Rick has known about Ayers for a long time before Obama, is fully aware of his connections in Chicago politics and academia, and has been disgusted by him for many years. Taken in context with his extensive knowledge (and dislike) of the Chicago Machine, it makes sense that being anti-Obama would extend far beyond disagreements of his politics. Am I right?
THE KEATING FRICKING 5! THEY DIDN'T BLOW ANYTHING UP YOU NINNY!
Ed.
Comment Posted By Surabaya Stew On 26.08.2008 @ 16:34
OBAMA'S COMPLICATED DANCE WITH THE CHICAGO MACHINE
Hey Drewsmom, why don't you judge Bush by the company he keeps with the House of Saud? (There's a true bunch of terrorists for you!) And what about the Keating 5? McCain did nothing wrong, yet he still kept company with them. Does that disqualify him? My point was, who is closer to the Military Industrial Complex; McCain or Obama? Even the most partisan Republican would have a hard time calling Obama a tool of defense industry. Which is why after 7 years of the "war on terror", I can't bring myself to vote for a man who has stated he will continue fighting to "defend America". As typical, our own worst enemy can be found by looking in the mirror.
Comment Posted By Surabaya Stew On 26.08.2008 @ 09:55
I'd rather have the Chicago Machine running the country than the Military Industrial Complex.
Comment Posted By Surabaya Stew On 25.08.2008 @ 22:50
