Jump to content

Why No Outcry Here?


Recommended Posts

I find this one more tasteless and offensive then I did the Obama one - and I strongly disliked that one. Anyone that pokes fun of a prisoner of war...well, it just disgusts me.

 

I'm with you TBG.

 

My guess is that people that think these kind of pictures are funny also "appreciate" bathroom humor and flatulence jokes. But don't regret; eventually those kind of people grow up and mature.

 

As to the article, very poorly written and thought out. Based on the author's ability to analyze and assess McCain (or more appropriately, inability), I wouldn't hire the author to even be my law clerk. And I've hired plenty of smart liberal law clerks and associates in the past. This article is just another spin piece by someone more interested in spewing garbage than actually informing the RS readers on the issues and policy differences between the candidates. Any one else wonder how many people he interviewed in order to be able to quote the few people that he did in support of his opinion that McCain is still haunted by his Vietnam demons and is a liberal bashing fear monger?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 57
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I'm with you TBG.

 

My guess is that people that think these kind of pictures are funny also "appreciate" bathroom humor and flatulence jokes. But don't regret; eventually those kind of people grow up and mature.

 

As to the article, very poorly written and thought out. Based on the author's ability to analyze and assess McCain (or more appropriately, inability), I wouldn't hire the author to even be my law clerk. And I've hired plenty of smart liberal law clerks and associates in the past. This article is just another spin piece by someone more interested in spewing garbage than actually informing the RS readers on the issues and policy differences between the candidates. Any one else wonder how many people he interviewed in order to be able to quote the few people that he did in support of his opinion that McCain is still haunted by his Vietnam demons and is a liberal bashing fear monger?

 

:thumb: It seems the Rolling Stone is most concerned with crafting their views to fit their readership, no matter what kind of stretch they need to make.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So where's the media on this? Why not the big deal being made of it by the media as the Obama cartoon?

 

Wasn't the media simply reacting to Obama's camp and their distaste for the New Yorker cartoon?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This article is just another spin piece by someone more interested in spewing garbage than actually informing the RS readers on the issues and policy differences between the candidates. Any one else wonder how many people he interviewed in order to be able to quote the few people that he did in support of his opinion that McCain is still haunted by his Vietnam demons and is a liberal bashing fear monger?

 

LN, let me disagree with you. I don't think the purpose of the article was to debate policy positions. The author clearly says that this supposedly independent middle-of-the-road Republican has resorted to the same ol' same ol' when it comes time to campaign. It would be hard to ignore Mr. McCain's change in positions on areas such as taxes and , say, immigration when he has gone from what some would call "middle ground" to what is the traditional "right." He's playing to his audience despite it going against what he has said in the past. That's the point of the article as I read it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LN, let me disagree with you. I don't think the purpose of the article was to debate policy positions. The author clearly says that this supposedly independent middle-of-the-road Republican has resorted to the same ol' same ol' when it comes time to campaign. It would be hard to ignore Mr. McCain's change in positions on areas such as taxes and , say, immigration when he has gone from what some would call "middle ground" to what is the traditional "right." He's playing to his audience despite it going against what he has said in the past. That's the point of the article as I read it.

 

I really don't mind disagreement; to the contrary, I appreciate well thought out debate/dialogue.

 

If the article actually focused on and limited itself to McCain flip flops and artfully discussed how McCain was pandering to the right, I'd think it would be a fair piece. But look at the subtitle of the article: Haunted by the ghosts of Vietnam, the one-time maverick has transformed himself into just another liberal-bashing fearmonger.

 

What Vietnam demons are haunting McCain? Does the article even try to explain what these demons are? Not that I could find. And even if he has some demons from his brutalizing experiences in Vietnam, the article doesn't address how that would somehow make him an in-effective or bad President.

 

Mr. Taibbi takes McCain to task for saying that Obama will take America "backwards" and "I'm surprised that a young man has bought into so many failed ideas". That's liberal bashing? Not to me its not.

 

Mr. Taibbi states that just a few months ago he was constantly running into Republicans who had profound concerns about the Senator's "liberal" record but these days the author is hard pressed to find any one that remembers that McCain once supported Roe v Wade or opposed the Bush tax cuts and compared the tortures at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo to the techniques of the Spanish Inquisition and even claimed that Mexican immigrants were "God's children too". Hello Mr. Taibbi, if you are hard pressed to find Republicans still very upset with McCain for taking those positions, the only place you are looking must be in your own apartment. There are many, many Republicans still upset. Perhaps, just perhaps (and I'd think anyone with an IQ of at least 75 would already realize this) the reason that some of the vitrol from the far Right has died down is the rather simple and undeniable fact that his opposition is now not some other more conservative candidate, but someone that has a far left voting record, which makes McCain look pretty dang conservative in comparison.

 

Mr Taibbi states that McCain "now" favors making the Bush tax cuts permanent as an example of his flip flopping to pander to the right. Now? McCain has supported making Bush's tax cuts permanent for quite some time. Mr. Taibbi says that McCain is unblinkingly pro life every time he remembers to mention abortion. Mr. Taibbi may want to dig a little deeper on McCain's long held positon on abortion. Mr. Taibbi says that McCain has now given up complaining (I can't type the word that Mr. Taibbi used) about the torture. Really? Has McCain changed his position on wanting to close Gitmo? Nope, not at all. Yet, Mr. Taibbi would have his readers believe that he has. Is that intelligent, well written journalism to you? Its not to me.

 

He condemns McCain for stating that Joel Olsteen is "inspirational" to try to convince people that somehow McCain has again flip flopped, since years ago McCain supposedly said that televangelists of the Falwell genus were "agents of intolerance". That's a flip flop? I don't know too much about Olsteen, but I wonder if Olsteen is as bad and intolerant as Mr. Taibbi would want his readers to believe he is, if for no other reason than the fact that ABC News named him one of the "10 Most Fascinating People of 2006". Perhaps if Mr. Taibbi had not used so much of his column space spewing profanities, but rather explained why he felt Olsteen was so intolerant, and thus it was hypocritical for McCain to call Olsteen inspirational, he might have carried the point. But he failed miserably to do so.

 

I really like the part where Mr.Taibbi then makes himself dizzy trying to argue that the very fact that McCain does not attack Obama and his wife as being American haters (as some far right people have), but rather when McCain states that he seeks the office with a humility of a man that cannot forget that his country saved him, it somehow is a back handed attack on Obama and his wife. Did you follow that one? Its the most ridiculous piece of circular logic I've read yet in a political article.

 

If the author wanted to cite correct specifics of where McCain flip flopped his position now that he's running for President, that would be fair. But other than a couple examples ( a couple of which aren't even correct) the author spends most of his column space spewing profanities and making unsubstantiated criticisms. Nah, after having read the article about 10 times now, it's one of the most poorly written articles I've read. If he's trying to write an article to persuade his readers of his positions, he's failed miserably. I wouldn't hire this guy to write a collection letter, and certainly not a court brief by which I had to convince a Judge to agree with the position I was taking. About the only thing he convinced me of by his article, is that the guy isn't a very good writer.

Edited by leatherneck
Link to comment
Share on other sites

About the only thing he convinced me of by his article, is that the guy isn't a very good writer.

 

LN, you and I infrequently see eye to eye on topic...but I can't find anything I disagree with in your post. :thumb: While the author may have some valid points, he goes way too far in his assumptions and any validity they have gets buried. The thing that stands out most to me is that I still don't make the "Vietnam demons" connection that the author sort of tries to make...amongst several other attempted connections.

Edited by True blue (and gold)
Per Clyde's suggestion, shortened quote
Link to comment
Share on other sites

LN, in order to save server space I won't quote your entire thread...;)

 

While you may correctly question the use of "now" when discussing President Bush's tax cuts, there is no debating Taibbi's point that McCain was adamantly against the cuts and now supports them.

 

To your point that Rs aren't complaining as much now as they were, I don't think that changes the argument that Mr. McCain , instead of standing on those original beliefs, has now changed them.

 

"Mr. Taibbi may want to dig a little deeper on McCain's long held position on abortion." When campaigning in 2000, the Senator said he would not support a R v W ban. That's now changed.

 

Add in hot buttons like immigration reform (changed from his not-so-recent stance) and the author's main theme is correct. You raise some fair criticisms about how he gets from point A to B and its obvious that he leans hard to the left. IMO that doesn't invalidate his main argument that McCain has changed with the electoral winds. You would think that with his opponent being so far to the left that McCain would NOT have to revise his positions to win over the right.

 

Lastly, the Vietnam "ghosts" tag line has nothing to do with the story. Probably a gratuitous shot.

Edited by Clyde
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So McCain has changed positions, so what? Both of them have changed so many of their former stances that my scorecard is obsolete. This is one election where it apparently doesn't matter. It certainly is not something that can be used by one campaign against the other very effectively.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So McCain has changed positions, so what? Both of them have changed so many of their former stances that my scorecard is obsolete. This is one election where it apparently doesn't matter. It certainly is not something that can be used by one campaign against the other very effectively.

 

I'm not one that gets caught up in the flip-flop debate. However, in this case it would be difficult to argue that the "Maverick" has not made a sharp right turn. That's the point of the article as I read it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LN, in order to save server space I won't quote your entire thread...;)

 

While you may correctly question the use of "now" when discussing President Bush's tax cuts, there is no debating Taibbi's point that McCain was adamantly against the cuts and now supports them.

 

To your point that Rs aren't complaining as much now as they were, I don't think that changes the argument that Mr. McCain , instead of standing on those original beliefs, has now changed them.

 

"Mr. Taibbi may want to dig a little deeper on McCain's long held position on abortion." When campaigning in 2000, the Senator said he would not support a R v W ban. That's now changed.

 

Add in hot buttons like immigration form (changed from his not-so-recent stance) and the author's main theme is correct. You raise some fair criticisms about how he gets from point A to B and its obvious that he leans hard to the left. IMO that doesn't invalidate his main argument that McCain has changed with the electoral winds. You would think that with his opponent being so far to the left that McCain would NOT have to revise his positions to win over the right.

 

Lastly, the Vietnam "ghosts" tag line has nothing to do with the story. Probably a gratuitous shot.

 

This is what invalidates his whole article in my eyes. If he can't respect a former prisoner of war for that (if ONLY that), then his opinion on anything else matters little to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what invalidates his whole article in my eyes. If he can't respect a former prisoner of war for that (if ONLY that), then his opinion on anything else matters little to me.

 

While I share your negative view of the cartoon, I won't go as far as to say it by itself invalidates his position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I share your negative view of the cartoon, I won't go as far as to say it by itself invalidates his position.

 

You're correct. But, couple that with the "anti-war vet" rhetoric in the article and that seals the deal for me. I'm willing to listen to anyone else with similar opinions, as long as they don't bash war vets for their service.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not one that gets caught up in the flip-flop debate. However, in this case it would be difficult to argue that the "Maverick" has not made a sharp right turn. That's the point of the article as I read it.

 

Why a sharp turn?

 

He's been in favor of the Bush tax cuts for several years, and if my memory serves me correctly, actually ended up voting for them didn't he? He was initially opposed, but then did in fact vote for them. And he voted for the a couple of years ago. If he had continued to vote against them but now was stating he's in favor of them, I'd agree with your point. But to insinuate that his current support for the tax cuts is only motivated to pander to the right isn't really accurate. He flip flopped on his position on the tax cuts, but it occurred years ago; thus I don't think it provides any support to the point that the author is trying to make (he's flip floppin now to cater to the right).

 

As to McCain on abortion, read the following link and tell me if you really think he has flip flopped on abortion. The author cites his very strong and long anti abortion voting record as a reason women should not support McCain: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/unmasking-mccain-his-reac_b_103580.html.

 

Thus the only hot button left is immigration. And from what I remember, when McCain capitulated, it really wasn't because he changed his position, it was because he realized that there was not enough support for his position to ever get passed into law.

 

By silence, I assume you agree that the author was way off based on the torture/Gitmo flip flop.

 

Guy's a hack. I wouldn't wrap month old fish in his article as it would make the fish smell worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why a sharp turn?

 

He's been in favor of the Bush tax cuts for several years, and if my memory serves me correctly, actually ended up voting for them didn't he? He was initially opposed, but then did in fact vote for them. And he voted for the a couple of years ago. If he had continued to vote against them but now was stating he's in favor of them, I'd agree with your point. But to insinuate that his current support for the tax cuts is only motivated to pander to the right isn't really accurate. He flip flopped on his position on the tax cuts, but it occurred years ago; thus I don't think it provides any support to the point that the author is trying to make (he's flip floppin now to cater to the right).

 

He was quoted as saying he could not be for any tax cuts that gave most of the benefits to the rich when talking about the 01 tax cut plan(voted against it then). He then OKd the Captial Gains tax cut in 03.

 

As to McCain on abortion, read the following link and tell me if you really think he has flip flopped on abortion. The author cites his very strong and long anti abortion voting record as a reason women should not support McCain: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/unmasking-mccain-his-reac_b_103580.html.

 

When you are quoted in 99 saying that you could never overturn R v W and then you change after catching heat from RTL....

 

 

By silence, I assume you agree that the author was way off based on the torture/Gitmo flip flop.

 

.

No silence. I agreed (How did he get from point A to point B).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using the site you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Policies.