No, No not at all, I am not even for Obama!

 

So let's look at the facts - Cunningham is trying to stir up hatred by stressing Obama's middle name, which also could be seen as religious hatred on Islam. All of this right before the republican nominee for president is set to speak? Obviously McCain saw the need to apologize for Cunningham, that should say something right there. And then Cunningham started to go after McCain in the afternoon because McCain apologized for him.

 

As I have stated on another post, most people in this forum don't care what Cunningham said, as they don't/won't let a figure like him play mind games with them using these tactics. Most people on this board are educated enough not to let someone like Cunningham help make up their minds. But with some undecided and or uneducated voters, this MAY effect the way they vote.

 

On Goldberg, I still stand by what I said! It "depends on what she said". If it was using colorful language about a president with low approval ratings, that is different, if she wasn't trying to scare people in trying to link Obama with being a Muslim or anything of Islam, like Cunningham did yesterday.

 

Again, Cunningham has a history of creating controversy, as in his actions against Clearmont County in the handling of the Marcus Fissel case with the deal made to the girlfriend. But when you have Cunningham causing this trouble on a national stage, it is embarrassing, or else McCain wouldn't have said a word about it. I am sure that Cunningham may have just wanted to create more controversy, talk show host like him rely on it, but now he is going right at his base.

 

 

1) Profanity is never called for

2) Approval ratings shouldn't matter in this issue. If they did, this was said in 2004 right before Bush won with the largest total of votes in history so his approval ratings at the time were pretty high.

3) Inappropriate is inappropriate.

No doubt that McCain has a temper of his own, but the way he handled this issues shows one of the reasons I like him so much. He does take a reasoned approach to things and tries to keep relationships with the other side as civil as possible. I'm sure someone can find instances where he got upset with other people, but all in all, to me McCain is someone that wants to keep a working relationship with people that he has to work with. And face it, there are a lot of elected officials and Americans that legitimately feel the more liberal philosophy is the correct way. That doesn't make them evil; that doesn't make them un-American. They just bring a different view to the table. And that can be a good thing. No party, no elected official and no American can have all the answers itself/her-himself. And you can't hope to get solid input or cooperation from people on the other side when you've castigated them.

 

We need a President who can work with the other side and try to find, with a reasoned approach, the best way to move our country forward. It takes someone with a vision that can see where we need to be down the road. Corporate American gets legitimately criticized for worrying too much about what will affect their stock price tomorrow as opposed to what is good for the company 5 years from now. I believe that McCain has that vision. Sure NAFTA hurts some of us today; no doubt about that. But we have to look what is going to be best for America and our children and grandchildren down the road. I firmly believe that improving the quality of life in Mexico and other third world countries will make America much safer and much stronger country for our children and grandchildren.

 

For all of Sen. Obama's call for change, I don't see that vision. He is a fantastic speaker and a stirrer of passionate emotions. But people that stir passionate emotions in people really worry me. Maybe its because I've been trained to look at facts and make reasoned logical decisions. Its what I get paid to do. When a corporate client wants to sue someone because the owner is emotionally upset, its my job to calmly analyze the situation and often convince my client that filing suit is not the way to go. I've yet to see a really good decision or action be made when people are stirred into a frenzy. Calm, reasoned decisions are generally much better. And in my opinion, Sen. Obama's only "strength" indicated to date, is his ability to work people into an emotional frenzy (often times using false or mis-leading rhetoric like he has done with NAFTA).

 

Another issue that he uses to lather up people is his call for universal health care. It sounds great: who wouldn't want the federal govt to provide "free" health insurance for them. But we are all smart enough to know that its not really free. Its going to be paid for by someone and we all know that it will be the upper middle and upper class. Thus those of us that strive to improve our lives by working hard and smart to make more money, will only see a greater portion of that go to the federal govt to fund universal health care. Universal health care sounds good in the short term to some, but universal health care paid for by the govt is not something that's good down the road. Does anyone think that any service regulated and paid for by the federal govt is done in an efficient manner? Look at any of those services provided by the federal govt and you'll find millions and billions of waste. Social security has been mismanaged. The military is laden with waste. Medicare and medicaid is fraught with fraud and abuse. I'm sorry if I'm a pessimist on this issue, but if the federal govt takes over health insurance, it will be more of the same. It will result in Americans having few options in making their own health care decisions. It will result in thousands of additional federal bureaucrats and employees sucking of the teet of the taxpayer. It will result in an even stronger concentration of power in the federal govt, which to me, with my states rights beliefs, is scary.

 

Putting up high tariffs and kicking out NAFTA is great and emotional rhetoric that really appeals to workers concerned about losing their jobs. It is something that helps today, but hurts down the road.

 

I listened to Robert Reich this morning on NPR criticize the fact that the govts of China and other countries were investing heavily in U.S. financial institutions and companies. Maybe I'm a simpleton, but for those worried about China's future possible military aggression against us, the fact that the Chinese govt has so much invested in America would seemingly make that a lot less likely, wouldn't it? In fact, the development of a true global economy with countries more inter twined with one another seems to me to decrease the chances for future military aggression. The growth of the EU in my opinion makes wars between European countries almost seem impossible any more. The same will result if the more countries are invested in one another. The same will result as the quality of life is improved in countries. Who wants to blow themselves up in a terrorist attack when they have a good job; their children have good jobs; they have something to live for? My guess is a lot fewer than if they have very little to live for.

 

NAFTA and other free trade agreements do bring some hurt to certain segments of America. No doubt about that. But if we really want to look at making America safer and stronger in the future, those agreements are vital in my opinion. As I often advised my corporate clients, don't let short term greed get in the way of long term profit. America must start thinking that way and must not get swept up in passionate rhetoric that plays on the emotions of people.

Run Leatherneck Run! You've got my vote.

No doubt that McCain has a temper of his own, but the way he handled this issues shows one of the reasons I like him so much.

The more I think about what happened yesterday, the more ticked off I get. Just as I had prepared myself to vote for McCain, he pulls this stunt. His Vietnam service gives him hero status in my book, but his actions yesterday were either the acts of a coward or a backstabber. Either way, I'm not so sure I want this guy running the country. I dont' think he has the testosterone to do it. I don't want a "can't we all get along" president. I want someone who will say it like it is. Cunningham was begged to host this gathering, get the invitation only crowd fired up and then they threw him under the bus. When a Congressman calls for strong actions against those who would harm us, is McCain going to apoligize and "distance himself?" When Ahmadinejad, Chavez and Kim Chong Il threaten to destroy the United States, is McCain going to send them flowers?

 

Cunningham spoke only the truth yesterday and McCain toasted him. I'm about ready to throw my vote for the socialist Dem candidates. Then maybe we can get a real leader to run in 2012.

The more I think about what happened yesterday, the more ticked off I get. Just as I had prepared myself to vote for McCain, he pulls this stunt. His Vietnam service gives him hero status in my book, but his actions yesterday were either the acts of a coward or a backstabber. Either way, I'm not so sure I want this guy running the country. I dont' think he has the testosterone to do it. I don't want a "can't we all get along" president. I want someone who will say it like it is. Cunningham was begged to host this gathering, get the invitation only crowd fired up and then they threw him under the bus. When a Congressman calls for strong actions against those who would harm us, is McCain going to apoligize and "distance himself?" When Ahmadinejad, Chavez and Kim Chong Il threaten to destroy the United States, is McCain going to send them flowers?

 

Cunningham spoke only the truth yesterday and McCain toasted him. I'm about ready to throw my vote for the socialist Dem candidates. Then maybe we can get a real leader to run in 2012.

 

I have more of a problem with McCain's staff. Obviously they didn't do their homework when it came to Billy C. I think that is quite disturbing.

I don't see any issue with what he said at least in this clip. I wonder if McCain even knew what was even said when he came out and apologized.

 

I am still trying to figure out how calling a man by his full name is disparaging.

I don't see any issue with what he said at least in this clip. I wonder if McCain even knew what was even said when he came out and apologized.

 

 

After seeing the clip, I am kind of undecided on this issue. On one hand, I don't like all the mudslinging that the candidates do at each other. On the other hand, I'm not sure if I can classify Bill Cunningham's remarks as "disparaging". They were certainly unnecessary, but they weren't that bad. I kind of agree with HHSDad about McCain kind of sucking up in this one. I'm not sure how to feel.

Sure Willie spoke the truth. Hussein is Sen. Obama's middle name. But anyone with a bit of intelligence who knows Willie, knows full well why Willie kept mentioning Sen. Obama's middle name. It was to try to subtlely (and wrongly) link Sen. Obama with Saddam Hussein and/or terrorists. Willie and his ilk in both parties is what is definitely wrong with politics in America today. Some folks think McCain's apology was cowardly or wrong. I on the other hand commend him. If McCain is to win, I want it to be because more Americans agree that he is the right person to lead this country; not because of some underhanded, subtle smear campaign against Sen. Obama. McCain was the victim of a smear campaign by Bush in 2000 so he probably is pretty sensitive to making sure his campaign has nothing to do with such tactics. In my opinion, there are plenty of legit reasons to vote against Sen. Obama. His middle name is not one of those reasons, nor is his race.

I am still trying to figure out how calling a man by his full name is disparaging.

 

If you can't figure out why it was un-called for, then no one should explain it to you.

I am still trying to figure out how calling a man by his full name is disparaging.

 

Come on MC. I know you and you are a smart person. You know fully well what Willie was trying to do. Willie is a Republican hack and baffoon that thinks Rush really is on loan from God. Heck, Willie thinks he himself is God.

I like McCain's response in that video. Makes me like him a little more. Will I vote for him? I don't know, I have not decided.

If you can't figure out why it was un-called for, then no one should explain it to you.

I could give you examples of "uncalled for" remarks by Dems against Bush, Cheney and others, but theres a limit to how long a post can be.

 

Heck, all you have to do is look at Barack and Hillary's remarks about each other. If a candidate can't stand being called by his middle name, what's he going to do when he's called the Great Satan?

Come on MC. I know you and you are a smart person. You know fully well what Willie was trying to do. Willie is a Republican hack and baffoon that thinks Rush really is on loan from God. Heck, Willie thinks he himself is God.

 

I really don't listen to Cunningham, but I am told that he routinely calls politicians by their full name. If a name will sway votes then you would think Barack Obama by itself would do that. Like I said before, why in the world would anyone with any sense at all have Billy Cunningham speak at their function. They were asking for trouble with that choice.

When your first name rhymes with Iraq, your middle name is the same as the dictator of that country, and your last name sounds a lot like the name of enemy #1, you would have to know you have an uphill battle ahead of you.