As opposed to that bipartisan love fest in Denver????

This thread is supposed to be about McCain's superiority in the way of bipartisanship. I simply pointed out that the RNC didn't reflect that.

 

Frankly, I thought the RNC speakers (particularly Guilani and Palin) were much more personal in their barbs toward Obama than the DNC speakers were about McCain.

That was the old McCain. He has since sold out to appease the far right. The old McCain called judgmental envangelicals "agents of intolerance." The new McCain seeks their endorsement and panders to them with irresponsible decisions such as naming Sarah Palin to the ticket. The old McCain vowed to run an honorable, clean campaign focused on the issues that are important to the American people. The new McCain runs outrageous attack ads with fundamentally dishonest premises about important things like lipstick. This at a time when the banking system is imploding. Even Karl Rove thinks McCain has gone too far.

 

The old McCain described the Bush White House by saying that "everything is [expletive deleted] spin". The new McCain is just as partisan, combative, and dishonest as Bush.

 

And as Karl Rove pointed out, he included Obama in that same conversation. It's just that O forgets to mention that Karl said BOTH of them went too far.

What does declining matching funds have to do with McCain's campaign?

:lol: It has everything to do with Obama reneging.

That was the old McCain. He has since sold out to appease the far right. The old McCain called judgmental envangelicals "agents of intolerance." The new McCain seeks their endorsement and panders to them with irresponsible decisions such as naming Sarah Palin to the ticket. The old McCain vowed to run an honorable, clean campaign focused on the issues that are important to the American people. The new McCain runs outrageous attack ads with fundamentally dishonest premises about important things like lipstick. This at a time when the banking system is imploding. Even Karl Rove thinks McCain has gone too far.

 

The old McCain described the Bush White House by saying that "everything is [expletive deleted] spin". The new McCain is just as partisan, combative, and dishonest as Bush.

 

You are going to wear me out with this silliness. You know that all politicians say stuff on the stump to attract votes. Yet you continually try to make it seem that 4 months on the stump are a truer reflection of a person than decades of performance. I find that irrational and illogical. And explain to me again why you think any thing that Karl Rove says is relevant?

 

Oh well, I guess I can understand your frustration and desperation. The D's have totally blown this election; an election that there is no way in Hades they should have lost. First they messed up and got charmed by an elequent speaker; then they let their hearts not their minds decide who their candidate would be, choosing to make history over putting the strongest candidate forward; then they got totally outmaneuvered on the VP's choice; and now Obama is running a very, very poor campaign. Yeah, I guess I can understand your attempt to say that McCain's strong and proven record of reaching across the aisle to find compromise and move the country forward is all of sudden trumped by the fact that he has met with some evangelicals.

 

Are you kidding me? The very fact that he would meet with Falwell, at Falwell's request I might remind you, shows me exactly the kind of person McCain is: a person who is willing to listen to people that are ideologically different than he is and at least consider their perspectives. That's not a bad thing; that's a good thing; that's something that has been missing in DC politics for so long. So please keep bringing the agent of intolerance thing up. It strengthens McCain's reputation as someone not so close minded that he will not at least listen to people that have different viewpoints than he does.

 

This country cannot be pulled together by totally alienating the far left or the far right. A President has to be able to unify this country in the middle; and in order to do that a President must at least be willing to meet with and listen to both the far left and the far right and nudge them towards the middle to try and find consensus. McCain's bipartisan record shows that he is much more capable of doing that than Obama.

 

I truly fear that if Obama gets elected, the policies of this country will shift dramatically to the left; to those of Pelosi and Reid, with little consideration towards the significant conservative part of this country. If that happens, there will be very little unification of the country and we will be doomed to 4 more years of very bitter, partisan politics in DC. And while that goes on, the more important issues facing this country will be relegated to the back burner as the politicians wage vicious political wars with one another. Thus, no real change will result.

 

H, I know I won't change your mind about McCain. That's impossible. But hopefully some readers will comprehend what I'm saying and consider it as they make up their minds.

What does that have to do with what you quoted? McCain has certainly been more bipartisan, which is an odd credential coming from the conservative bloc. That doesn't, however, mean he hasn't reneged on his commitment to run a decent campaign.

 

Habib, the article was talking about working on legislation, not running campaigns. There is a huge difference.

 

When the dust settles after an election, THAT'S when the ability to work with everyone (bipartisanship) comes in.

McCain also allowed the Republican National Convention to sanction several speeches that openly mocked Obama and were tinged with condescension. That was another way to appease the far right that enjoys doing that every chance it gets.

 

There certainly was no bipartisan spirit in Minneapolis that week.

 

How bipartisan are Obama and Biden? You have got to be kidding me. At least McCain has worked with the other side of the aisle for years and years.

 

Past performance is usually an accurate predictor of future actions.

McCain also allowed the Republican National Convention to sanction several speeches that openly mocked Obama and were tinged with condescension. That was another way to appease the far right that enjoys doing that every chance it gets.

 

There certainly was no bipartisan spirit in Minneapolis that week.

 

Even if for argument purposes you are right about the convention, isn't that what conventions are for; to lather up the delegates (whom generally aren't very bipartisan by necessity)?

 

The simple, and undeniable, fact is that McCain has a much stronger record of working with the other side. I assume one could argue that such entire record, accumulated over decades, will be thrown out the window by what occurs during a several month campaign, but honestly I think that's a pretty weak argument and its an argument driven by the fact that Obama's record as an elected official is much, much more partisan than McCain's. Which reminds me of something I was taught in law school. If the facts don't support your argument, come up with a different issue to argue.

This thread is supposed to be about McCain's superiority in the way of bipartisanship. I simply pointed out that the RNC didn't reflect that.

 

Frankly, I thought the RNC speakers (particularly Guilani and Palin) were much more personal in their barbs toward Obama than the DNC speakers were about McCain.

 

Conventions have no impact on how McCain has voted in the past. He apparently has walked the walk. That means more to me than talk. Particularly at a convention which obviously is meant to be a very partisan event.

Obama's record as an elected official is much, much more partisan than McCain's.

 

(what LITTLE record that there is....).

How bipartisan are Obama and Biden? You have got to be kidding me. At least McCain has worked with the other side of the aisle for years and years.

 

Past performance is usually an accurate predictor of future actions.

Even if for argument purposes you are right about the convention, isn't that what conventions are for; to lather up the delegates (whom generally aren't very bipartisan by necessity)?

 

The simple, and undeniable, fact is that McCain has a much stronger record of working with the other side. I assume one could argue that such entire record, accumulated over decades, will be thrown out the window by what occurs during a several month campaign, but honestly I think that's a pretty weak argument and its an argument driven by the fact that Obama's record as an elected official is much, much more partisan than McCain's. Which reminds me of something I was taught in law school. If the facts don't support your argument, come up with a different issue to argue.

Conventions have no impact on how McCain has voted in the past. He apparently has walked the walk. That means more to me than talk. Particularly at a convention which obviously is meant to be a very partisan event.

Guys, I know about McCain's history of bipartisanship ... it's one reason I've had so much respect for the guy.

 

As I've stated before, however, I worry that McCain is willing to sacrifice that to curry favor with the right wing of the Republican Party in order to get elected. The nature and tone of his campaign reflect those concerns.