McCain on the Media's Infatuation with Obama

[leatherneck]

I'd argue that Katie teed it up nicely for Senator Obama. You may not agree with his strategic view but he certainly articulated his beliefs clearly - right or wrong as they may be. I hear him saying that the surge by itself decreased violence but did it help our real goal? Part of it is "anti-McCain" but part of it is a legit question. He's asking if we as a country are focused on the big picture of making the U.S. safer. That's a fair question to ask when we are spending so much money and, more importantly, sacrificing lives.

 

CBS has some serious egg on its face for editing out Senator McCain's comments the other night that seemed to indicate he was confused on when the surge actually started. We can't have that in our mainstream media.

 

If he'd have come out and simply stated when asked the first time by Couric: "the surge worked magnificently. I was wrong to oppose it as it has brought much needed stability to Iraq and made our servicemen and women in Iraq much safer. I still think however that we made a mistake going into Iraq and that we have to find a way to get more military into Afghanistan because that is where we should have been concentrating on from the beginning", I wouldn't agree with his statement, but I would have respected it. But when he danced repeatedly around Couric's question and did his best (which wasn't very good) to avoid answering the question, he looked very poor and like he was doing the typical politician's spin charade. I think this episode really helped solidify the belief going around that he's a great reader of canned speeches, but when presented with questions on the fly, he stumbles. If that belief is accurate, I can see why some undecided voters may wonder how he will respond, if elected, to other than canned situations that he may find himself in (ie, if he can't handle Couric, how is he going to handle Putin, Kim Jong-il, and the like?).

[leatherneck]

No argument about the media's culpability. However, IMO its not the candidate's job to be whiny about it. Let his henchman do that.

 

McCain's challenge of Obama's surge view is exactly what he needs to do. However, to us middle of the roaders, his tiresome "he'd rather lose a war than a campaign" is insulting and smacks of bad politics.

 

McCain needs to be above the fray if he's going to convince us that he's a leader.

 

 

Okay, if by middle of the road, you mean "undecided", the bolded part made me chuckle. I appreciate you bringing a little levity into what otherwise would have been a laugh free day. Based on your posts, you are about as undecided as I am.:D:D

 

And why should his henchmen do it? I thought we wanted a President that was willing to speak his mind and talk straight with us? If its okay for his henchmen to do it at his direction, then its okay for him to do it. And it wasn't whiny at all. I think it was a spot on assessment by McCain.

[Clyde]

If he'd have come out and simply stated when asked the first time by Couric: "the surge worked magnificently. I was wrong to oppose it as it has brought much needed stability to Iraq and made our servicemen and women in Iraq much safer. I still think however that we made a mistake going into Iraq and that we have to find a way to get more military into Afghanistan because that is where we should have been concentrating on from the beginning", I wouldn't agree with his statement, but I would have respected it. But when he danced repeatedly around Couric's question and did his best (which wasn't very good) to avoid answering the question, he looked very poor and like he was doing the typical politician's spin charade. I think this episode really helped solidify the belief going around that he's a great reader of canned speeches, but when presented with questions on the fly, he stumbles. If that belief is accurate, I can see why some undecided voters may wonder how he will respond, if elected, to other than canned situations that he may find himself in (ie, if he can't handle Couric, how is he going to handle Putin, Kim Jong-il, and the like?).

 

I think the people that use the "he only does well in canned speeches" line have already decided that Obama is not their guy.

 

While your proposed answer would have been satisfactory, I didn't take his answer the way you and others have. I'm not smart enough to debate him nor Sen McCain on defense strategies so I won't say who is right and who is wrong.

[Clyde]

Okay, if by middle of the road, you mean "undecided", the bolded part made me chuckle. I appreciate you bringing a little levity into what otherwise would have been a laugh free day. Based on your posts, you are about as undecided as I am.:D:D

 

I was wondering how long before someone would make that point. Trust me. I'm truly undecided which is a first as I've always known that the R candidate was the guy for me. That was partly because of the actual candidate and also partly for his opposition. Neither of those conditions exist this time.

 

However, I've assumed the role on here of making sure all sides are debated. Since 99% of the board is for McCain that only leaves me with the option of proposing Obama's side. Otherwise, the board would be either quiet or filled with RTS and Aces and the McCain talking points(easy, easy - a gentle poke being made in fun) plus others saying they've seen videos that don't exist. I don't truly believe every position I post(read: "Dale thread"). I do enjoy getting people to respond and show their colors.

[Clyde]

O

And why should his henchmen do it? I thought we wanted a President that was willing to speak his mind and talk straight with us? If its okay for his henchmen to do it at his direction, then its okay for him to do it. And it wasn't whiny at all. I think it was a spot on assessment by McCain.

 

I disagree. Bush has Cheney (and Rove) to do his dirty work. I want a President to be a straight talker on important issues - issues that impact me. The media's infatuation with Obama is way down that list.

 

It was spot on. It was also whiny.

[leatherneck]

Well...true. How about at least a "hum"?

 

But what are you looking for in a President? A cheerleader that can get the fans all energized but doesn't know a thing about the game, or a knowledgeable qb that while not very exciting understands the game and gets the job done? In a perfect world, I'd like to have both (Reagan) but neither candidate fits the bill this race. And with the situation this country is currently in, I'll take the boring, unexciting qb that orchestrates the drives and touchdowns over the cheerleader (it must be getting close to football season, if I'm using football metaphors in the P&R forum).:banana::banana: Now back to the football forum for me.

[True blue (and gold)]

But what are you looking for in a President? A cheerleader that can get the fans all energized but doesn't know a thing about the game, or a knowledgeable qb that while not very exciting understands the game and gets the job done? In a perfect world, I'd like to have both (Reagan) but neither candidate fits the bill this race. And with the situation this country is currently in, I'll take the boring, unexciting qb that orchestrates the drives and touchdowns over the cheerleader (it must be getting close to football season, if I'm using football metaphors in the P&R forum).:banana::banana: Now back to the football forum for me.

 

Trust me, I understand (and love!) the football analogies. However, I don't agree with your assessment of either candidate. FWIW, some cheerleaders understand the game pretty well, they just have never played it. I am not sure that I entirely agree with McCain as a QB that will get the job done on all points either. THAT is what makes it tough for me.

[True blue (and gold)]

I was wondering how long before someone would make that point. Trust me. I'm truly undecided which is a first as I've always known that the R candidate was the guy for me. That was partly because of the actual candidate and also partly for his opposition. Neither of those conditions exist this time.

 

However, I've assumed the role on here of making sure all sides are debated. Since 99% of the board is for McCain that only leaves me with the option of proposing Obama's side. Otherwise, the board would be either quiet or filled with RTS and Aces and the McCain talking points(easy, easy - a gentle poke being made in fun) plus others saying they've seen videos that don't exist. I don't truly believe every position I post(read: "Dale thread"). I do enjoy getting people to respond and show their colors.

 

You bring up a good point. No one has debated whether or not I am undecided, but I find myself having to defend Obama a lot more than McCain here because our board is quite heavily in McCain's favor. To some, they may "think" that my mind is made up, but it's not. I assume it is the same for you.

[AcesFull]

And her producers did an even better job of cutting out the places where McCain makes an idiot of himself and makes fun of Obama for not knowing that the surge caused the Anbar Awakening and stated that it was a 'matter of history'. (Again, oopsie daisy.)

 

Sounds like a biased media to me...

You seem unbothered by the fact that Obama is incapable of admitting a mistake. If you were paying attention, then you might have noticed that the large media contingent that followed Obama on this global tour were nowhere to be found when Obama made multiple trips to Iraq and Afghanistan. Why do you think that was?

[AcesFull]

Any truly undecided voter who watched Obama's interviews with Katie Couric or Terry Moran and is not disturbed by Obama's answers may not be as undecided as they believe. His assertion that the improvment in conditions in Iraq may have had nothing to do with the surge but may have just been the result of a series of coincidences was bizarre. McCain was advocating the surge strategy when almost nobody else was. He deserves much of the credit for the nosedive in violence in that country.

 

McCain is right, Obama would rather lose a war than a campaign. Obama advocated a firm timetable for withdrawal with no surge and no consideration of the condition on the ground. Had Bush taken the advice of Obama, Murtha, Reid, and Pelosi, the US would already have lost the war. Thank you, John McCain.

[Clyde]

If you were paying attention, then you might have noticed that the large media contingent that followed Obama on this global tour were nowhere to be found when Obama made multiple trips to Iraq and Afghanistan. Why do you think that was?

 

Is this the same as Israel will always be a friend to Israel?

[Clyde]

Any truly undecided voter who watched Obama's interviews with Katie Couric or Terry Moran and is not disturbed by Obama's answers may not be as undecided as they believe. His assertion that the improvment in conditions in Iraq may have had nothing to do with the surge but may have just been the result of a series of coincidences was bizarre. McCain was advocating the surge strategy when almost nobody else was. He deserves much of the credit for the nosedive in violence in that country.

 

McCain is right, Obama would rather lose a war than a campaign. Obama advocated a firm timetable for withdrawal with no surge and no consideration of the condition on the ground. Had Bush taken the advice of Obama, Murtha, Reid, and Pelosi, the US would already have lost the war. Thank you, John McCain.

 

I would expect nothing less from someone with as much venom as you do towards Obama. That's not a criticism of you but, rather, simply an observation.

 

You may be right on the "what if" game but we won't know. We do know that the surge had an effect - a positive effect. However, to assign a % to it is nothing more than an academic exercise or fodder for discussion boards.

 

I think we all hear what we want to hear when Obama speaks. I've heard him twice now (Couric and Brian Williams) answer the "surge" issue. He clearly gave credit to the 30,000 troops and the positive effect it had. He said that he previously said it would be almost impossible for it to not have a positive effect on violence in Iraq. The part of the answer that upsets you and others (but not all of us) is the part where he said it was one part of the success formula. I don't think we can deny that being true.

 

Again, his point , which I've not had problems following, is that HE doesn't think it fixes the big issue and solves the #1 problem - Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Disagree with him on his thoughts but I think its disingenuous to say he doesn't give any credit to the surge.

[Clyde]

Here's the transcript for the Couric interview. It backs up my previous post.

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/22/eveningnews/main4283623.shtml?source=mostpop_story

[ladiesbballcoach]

Unfortunately for many voters these things will be non-issues as they will not care.

[Clyde]

Unfortunately for many voters these things will be non-issues as they will not care.

 

Which things do you speak of specifically? And are you one of those voters?