During the 2008 campaign, a woman asked GOP nominee John McCain a question and called Obama an “Arab.” McCain immediately corrected her, saying, “No, no ma’am, he’s a decent, family man, citizen, that I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues, and that’s what this campaign is about.”
So the opposite of Arab is "a decent, family man, citizen"?
The actual quote I believe is "I can't trust Obama, I have read about him, he's not...he's an Arab." To which McCain responds with said statement. The "he's a citizen" part is the reference to the arab part.
is the relevant video
I love the Breaking News: McCain: Obama not an Arab.
You may not remember much of the campaign, but that was actually a pretty big deal at the time. McCain could have simply evaded the the (obviously old and confused) woman or thrown out some glossy non-sense. Instead, he confronted one of the most pervasive and ugly attacks against Obama throughout the campaign - that Obama is some sort of "other," non citizen, or foreign inflitrator. It may be because this occurred as McCain's chances at winning seemed to dwindle, so he was starting to think of his legacy, but this was one of the most presidential moments for McCain throughout the campaign.
Democracy is dependent upon the notion of a good-faith opposition. Without candidates who mutually respect one another and respect the process, democracy cannot survive. It's the reason Hillary immediately started to support Obama once he got the nomination and later agreed to serve in his administration. It's the reason the losing candidate always gives a concession speech. You can't realistically hope to govern without the consent of the opposition. McCain understands this, and I think this is an attempt to legitimize Obama as a candidate in the eyes of Republican voters (while still hoping to win).
There are obvious things for us to be concerned about as viewers, namely that it may look like McCain is suggesting that Arabs cannot be decent men, but I don't think that's the intent. He's confronting a broader set of concerns among the some in voting public. The statement wasn't perfect, but I think few could have provided a better response in the heat of the moment at the tail end of a long campaign.
It's worth noting that all of the current Republican candidates are happy to play on fears of Obama's "otherness." It's difficult to see any of them handling a similar situation anywhere near as well as McCain did.
Well said. When McCain corrected this looney tune, I thought to myself, "Finally! This was the guy that politicians from both parties respected and worked with the past two decades."
It's a shame the extent that people are willing to destroy and compromise everything they believe in to become president.
During the 2008 campaign, a woman asked GOP nominee John McCain a question and called Obama an “Arab.” McCain immediately corrected her, saying, “No, no ma’am, he’s a decent, family man, citizen, that I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues, and that’s what this campaign is about.”
So the opposite of Arab is "a decent, family man, citizen"?
The actual quote I believe is "I can't trust Obama, I have read about him, he's not...he's an Arab." To which McCain responds with said statement. The "he's a citizen" part is the reference to the arab part.
I love the Breaking News: McCain: Obama not an Arab.
You may not remember much of the campaign, but that was actually a pretty big deal at the time. McCain could have simply evaded the the (obviously old and confused) woman or thrown out some glossy non-sense. Instead, he confronted one of the most pervasive and ugly attacks against Obama throughout the campaign - that Obama is some sort of "other," non citizen, or foreign inflitrator. It may be because this occurred as McCain's chances at winning seemed to dwindle, so he was starting to think of his legacy, but this was one of the most presidential moments for McCain throughout the campaign.
Democracy is dependent upon the notion of a good-faith opposition. Without candidates who mutually respect one another and respect the process, democracy cannot survive. It's the reason Hillary immediately started to support Obama once he got the nomination and later agreed to serve in his administration. It's the reason the losing candidate always gives a concession speech. You can't realistically hope to govern without the consent of the opposition. McCain understands this, and I think this is an attempt to legitimize Obama as a candidate in the eyes of Republican voters (while still hoping to win).
There are obvious things for us to be concerned about as viewers, namely that it may look like McCain is suggesting that Arabs cannot be decent men, but I don't think that's the intent. He's confronting a broader set of concerns among the some in voting public. The statement wasn't perfect, but I think few could have provided a better response in the heat of the moment at the tail end of a long campaign.
It's worth noting that all of the current Republican candidates are happy to play on fears of Obama's "otherness." It's difficult to see any of them handling a similar situation anywhere near as well as McCain did.
Well said. When McCain corrected this looney tune, I thought to myself, "Finally! This was the guy that politicians from both parties respected and worked with the past two decades."
It's a shame the extent that people are willing to destroy and compromise everything they believe in to become president.
I actualy think that is one of the big problems with the american elections. There is so much shit going on around it that the true message and belief of people gets lost. And any who try to stay true and stand up for there believes lose out any chance of winning as they get buried in the filth throw around by the other parties (Ron Paul is actualy a good example of that in the current election, regardless of the fact if you support him or not he tries to focus on the important issues and get his point across in an intelligent manner but he gets drowned out by all the shit coming from santorum/romney)
During the 2008 campaign, a woman asked GOP nominee John McCain a question and called Obama an “Arab.” McCain immediately corrected her, saying, “No, no ma’am, he’s a decent, family man, citizen, that I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues, and that’s what this campaign is about.”
So the opposite of Arab is "a decent, family man, citizen"?
The actual quote I believe is "I can't trust Obama, I have read about him, he's not...he's an Arab." To which McCain responds with said statement. The "he's a citizen" part is the reference to the arab part.
I love the Breaking News: McCain: Obama not an Arab.
You may not remember much of the campaign, but that was actually a pretty big deal at the time. McCain could have simply evaded the the (obviously old and confused) woman or thrown out some glossy non-sense. Instead, he confronted one of the most pervasive and ugly attacks against Obama throughout the campaign - that Obama is some sort of "other," non citizen, or foreign inflitrator. It may be because this occurred as McCain's chances at winning seemed to dwindle, so he was starting to think of his legacy, but this was one of the most presidential moments for McCain throughout the campaign.
Democracy is dependent upon the notion of a good-faith opposition. Without candidates who mutually respect one another and respect the process, democracy cannot survive. It's the reason Hillary immediately started to support Obama once he got the nomination and later agreed to serve in his administration. It's the reason the losing candidate always gives a concession speech. You can't realistically hope to govern without the consent of the opposition. McCain understands this, and I think this is an attempt to legitimize Obama as a candidate in the eyes of Republican voters (while still hoping to win).
There are obvious things for us to be concerned about as viewers, namely that it may look like McCain is suggesting that Arabs cannot be decent men, but I don't think that's the intent. He's confronting a broader set of concerns among the some in voting public. The statement wasn't perfect, but I think few could have provided a better response in the heat of the moment at the tail end of a long campaign.
It's worth noting that all of the current Republican candidates are happy to play on fears of Obama's "otherness." It's difficult to see any of them handling a similar situation anywhere near as well as McCain did.
I've followed politics since at least 1992 and after reading your words about Mr McCain, all I can say about this great man is... + Show Spoiler +
whatever
It's worth noting that your note, is hyperbole. All republicans? Neo-Con HQ called, they want their cards back.
During the 2008 campaign, a woman asked GOP nominee John McCain a question and called Obama an “Arab.” McCain immediately corrected her, saying, “No, no ma’am, he’s a decent, family man, citizen, that I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues, and that’s what this campaign is about.”
So the opposite of Arab is "a decent, family man, citizen"?
The actual quote I believe is "I can't trust Obama, I have read about him, he's not...he's an Arab." To which McCain responds with said statement. The "he's a citizen" part is the reference to the arab part.
I love the Breaking News: McCain: Obama not an Arab.
You may not remember much of the campaign, but that was actually a pretty big deal at the time. McCain could have simply evaded the the (obviously old and confused) woman or thrown out some glossy non-sense. Instead, he confronted one of the most pervasive and ugly attacks against Obama throughout the campaign - that Obama is some sort of "other," non citizen, or foreign inflitrator. It may be because this occurred as McCain's chances at winning seemed to dwindle, so he was starting to think of his legacy, but this was one of the most presidential moments for McCain throughout the campaign.
Democracy is dependent upon the notion of a good-faith opposition. Without candidates who mutually respect one another and respect the process, democracy cannot survive. It's the reason Hillary immediately started to support Obama once he got the nomination and later agreed to serve in his administration. It's the reason the losing candidate always gives a concession speech. You can't realistically hope to govern without the consent of the opposition. McCain understands this, and I think this is an attempt to legitimize Obama as a candidate in the eyes of Republican voters (while still hoping to win).
There are obvious things for us to be concerned about as viewers, namely that it may look like McCain is suggesting that Arabs cannot be decent men, but I don't think that's the intent. He's confronting a broader set of concerns among the some in voting public. The statement wasn't perfect, but I think few could have provided a better response in the heat of the moment at the tail end of a long campaign.
It's worth noting that all of the current Republican candidates are happy to play on fears of Obama's "otherness." It's difficult to see any of them handling a similar situation anywhere near as well as McCain did.
I've followed politics since at least 1992 and after reading your words about Mr McCain, all I can say about this great man is... + Show Spoiler +
whatever
It's worth noting that your note, is hyperbole. All republicans? Neo-Con HQ called, they want their cards back.
I said, "all of the current Republican candidates."
It's possible that I should have mentioned that I meant "presidential candidates," but I thought the context was pretty clear. If you're really that upset about it, I can find you some clips. There's not really room for hyperbole. There are only 4 of them left. The tactic of appealing to fears of Obama's "otherness" isn't as pervasive as it was during the healthcare debate, but it's still going on. I suspect it'll get toned down after the primary season, especially if Romney is the candidate, but for now it's alive and well
Also, I'm not here to tell you how great McCain is. I thought he ran a poor campaign and did serious damage to his legacy as a pragmatic, centrist legislator. That being said, the clip being discussed was a good moment in his campaign. It was one of those rare moments in which a candidate actually tries to un-muddy the waters and potentially elevate the conversation.
During the 2008 campaign, a woman asked GOP nominee John McCain a question and called Obama an “Arab.” McCain immediately corrected her, saying, “No, no ma’am, he’s a decent, family man, citizen, that I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues, and that’s what this campaign is about.”
So the opposite of Arab is "a decent, family man, citizen"?
The actual quote I believe is "I can't trust Obama, I have read about him, he's not...he's an Arab." To which McCain responds with said statement. The "he's a citizen" part is the reference to the arab part.
I love the Breaking News: McCain: Obama not an Arab.
You may not remember much of the campaign, but that was actually a pretty big deal at the time. McCain could have simply evaded the the (obviously old and confused) woman or thrown out some glossy non-sense. Instead, he confronted one of the most pervasive and ugly attacks against Obama throughout the campaign - that Obama is some sort of "other," non citizen, or foreign inflitrator. It may be because this occurred as McCain's chances at winning seemed to dwindle, so he was starting to think of his legacy, but this was one of the most presidential moments for McCain throughout the campaign.
Democracy is dependent upon the notion of a good-faith opposition. Without candidates who mutually respect one another and respect the process, democracy cannot survive. It's the reason Hillary immediately started to support Obama once he got the nomination and later agreed to serve in his administration. It's the reason the losing candidate always gives a concession speech. You can't realistically hope to govern without the consent of the opposition. McCain understands this, and I think this is an attempt to legitimize Obama as a candidate in the eyes of Republican voters (while still hoping to win).
There are obvious things for us to be concerned about as viewers, namely that it may look like McCain is suggesting that Arabs cannot be decent men, but I don't think that's the intent. He's confronting a broader set of concerns among the some in voting public. The statement wasn't perfect, but I think few could have provided a better response in the heat of the moment at the tail end of a long campaign.
It's worth noting that all of the current Republican candidates are happy to play on fears of Obama's "otherness." It's difficult to see any of them handling a similar situation anywhere near as well as McCain did.
Well said. When McCain corrected this looney tune, I thought to myself, "Finally! This was the guy that politicians from both parties respected and worked with the past two decades."
It's a shame the extent that people are willing to destroy and compromise everything they believe in to become president.
I actualy think that is one of the big problems with the american elections. There is so much shit going on around it that the true message and belief of people gets lost. And any who try to stay true and stand up for there believes lose out any chance of winning as they get buried in the filth throw around by the other parties (Ron Paul is actualy a good example of that in the current election, regardless of the fact if you support him or not he tries to focus on the important issues and get his point across in an intelligent manner but he gets drowned out by all the shit coming from santorum/romney)
The simple and sad matter of fact is that he gets drowned out first by the fringe and uninformed caucus voters this time around, afterwards it is too late for him to get drowned out by the ill informed and with hyperbolic bullshit arguments(by the media - of both sides) filled average joe in the election, because at this point Paul is already a person of no interest whatsoever. That´s not how a democracy by and for the people works unfortunately. Cynicism is a necessity - especially now it seems.
Well of course he does - after all he is a politician and can´t please everybody - especially with his foreign policy(and big chunks of his economic policy). But just as an example of how the seeding out of "bad" candidates is done he works rather well.
On March 26 2012 21:57 Doublemint wrote: Well of course he does - after all he is a politician and can´t please everybody - especially with his foreign policy(and big chunks of his economic policy). But just as an example of how the seeding out of "bad" candidates is done he works rather well.
Ron Paul's biggest problem is that he doesn't communicate his ideas very well. Rather than appearing to be on the cutting of edge of many issues (which he is), he more often than not comes off as a crazy old uncle. I'm interested in seeing how Rand Paul does by comparison.
On March 26 2012 21:57 Doublemint wrote: Well of course he does - after all he is a politician and can´t please everybody - especially with his foreign policy(and big chunks of his economic policy). But just as an example of how the seeding out of "bad" candidates is done he works rather well.
Ron Paul's biggest problem is that he doesn't communicate his ideas very well. Rather than appearing to be on the cutting of edge of many issues (which he is), he more often than not comes off as a crazy old uncle. I'm interested in seeing how Rand Paul does by comparison.
Well, let's hope he inherited the most important Paul trait.... to pander and mean it.
On March 26 2012 21:57 Doublemint wrote: Well of course he does - after all he is a politician and can´t please everybody - especially with his foreign policy(and big chunks of his economic policy). But just as an example of how the seeding out of "bad" candidates is done he works rather well.
Ron Paul's biggest problem is that he doesn't communicate his ideas very well. Rather than appearing to be on the cutting of edge of many issues (which he is), he more often than not comes off as a crazy old uncle. I'm interested in seeing how Rand Paul does by comparison.
Well, let's hope he inherited the most important Paul trait.... to pander and mean it.
So far, it looks like Rand does.
Just as an interesting tidbit, a lot of people have openly wondered whether Ron Paul's lack of attacking Romney is a sign that there is an agreement in place to have Rand be Romney's VP.
On March 26 2012 21:57 Doublemint wrote: Well of course he does - after all he is a politician and can´t please everybody - especially with his foreign policy(and big chunks of his economic policy). But just as an example of how the seeding out of "bad" candidates is done he works rather well.
Ron Paul's biggest problem is that he doesn't communicate his ideas very well. Rather than appearing to be on the cutting of edge of many issues (which he is), he more often than not comes off as a crazy old uncle. I'm interested in seeing how Rand Paul does by comparison.
Well, let's hope he inherited the most important Paul trait.... to pander and mean it.
So far, it looks like Rand does.
Just as an interesting tidbit, a lot of people have openly wondered whether Ron Paul's lack of attacking Romney is a sign that there is an agreement in place to have Rand be Romney's VP.
I'm fully aware of the angle. It's true that in some caucus voting there have been unusual groupings of supporters. DeepElemBlues brought up this subject many pages ago, and the factor the keeps repeating in my head is that Romney is in the banks pocket. Unless we're talking a Paul Secratary of State or higher, it's just not very plausible. If it did happen, and Romney went forth as Bush and Barry before him, with a Paul in cabinet, and quiet...the shitstorm would be deep and dark for liberty.
On March 26 2012 21:57 Doublemint wrote: Well of course he does - after all he is a politician and can´t please everybody - especially with his foreign policy(and big chunks of his economic policy). But just as an example of how the seeding out of "bad" candidates is done he works rather well.
Ron Paul's biggest problem is that he doesn't communicate his ideas very well. Rather than appearing to be on the cutting of edge of many issues (which he is), he more often than not comes off as a crazy old uncle. I'm interested in seeing how Rand Paul does by comparison.
Well, let's hope he inherited the most important Paul trait.... to pander and mean it.
So far, it looks like Rand does.
Just as an interesting tidbit, a lot of people have openly wondered whether Ron Paul's lack of attacking Romney is a sign that there is an agreement in place to have Rand be Romney's VP.
That would actually be a brilliant move to unite the party, as both Pauls are pretty huge figures of the tea party movement. And "conservatives" would have to get behind Romney as well if they want to have a chance against Obama. And common sense might get a chance once again if all this bullshit rhetoric driven by talk radio and the fringes will stop or at least get less attention. Hey, one can dream - right?
On March 26 2012 21:57 Doublemint wrote: Well of course he does - after all he is a politician and can´t please everybody - especially with his foreign policy(and big chunks of his economic policy). But just as an example of how the seeding out of "bad" candidates is done he works rather well.
Ron Paul's biggest problem is that he doesn't communicate his ideas very well. Rather than appearing to be on the cutting of edge of many issues (which he is), he more often than not comes off as a crazy old uncle. I'm interested in seeing how Rand Paul does by comparison.
Well, let's hope he inherited the most important Paul trait.... to pander and mean it.
So far, it looks like Rand does.
Just as an interesting tidbit, a lot of people have openly wondered whether Ron Paul's lack of attacking Romney is a sign that there is an agreement in place to have Rand be Romney's VP.
That would actually be a brilliant move to unite the party, as both Pauls are pretty huge figures of the tea party movement. And "conservatives" would have to get behind Romney as well if they want to have a chance against Obama. And common sense might get a chance once again if all this bullshit rhetoric driven by talk radio and the fringes will stop or at least get less attention. Hey, one can dream - right?
I thought you said Paul was of no interest whatsoever? Is that Romneyspeak I detect?
On March 27 2012 02:00 DoubleReed wrote: Would Romney really pick Paul as a VP? Don't they clash pretty hard on things? Is that actually a possibility?
Think there talking about Rand Paul. not Ron Paul.
On March 26 2012 21:57 Doublemint wrote: Well of course he does - after all he is a politician and can´t please everybody - especially with his foreign policy(and big chunks of his economic policy). But just as an example of how the seeding out of "bad" candidates is done he works rather well.
Ron Paul's biggest problem is that he doesn't communicate his ideas very well. Rather than appearing to be on the cutting of edge of many issues (which he is), he more often than not comes off as a crazy old uncle. I'm interested in seeing how Rand Paul does by comparison.
On March 27 2012 02:00 DoubleReed wrote: Would Romney really pick Paul as a VP? Don't they clash pretty hard on things? Is that actually a possibility?
Anything is possible. They clash on a lot politically. Romney's main donors this year are all the financial institutions that supported Obama in 08. So, just on bailouts alone, they would be completely incompatible. If we're talking Rand.. his budget plan, and that of his father, are not that different. And since you mention it..
Some bloomberg stooges asked Ron about dropping out and a Romney alliance.
On March 26 2012 21:57 Doublemint wrote: Well of course he does - after all he is a politician and can´t please everybody - especially with his foreign policy(and big chunks of his economic policy). But just as an example of how the seeding out of "bad" candidates is done he works rather well.
Ron Paul's biggest problem is that he doesn't communicate his ideas very well. Rather than appearing to be on the cutting of edge of many issues (which he is), he more often than not comes off as a crazy old uncle. I'm interested in seeing how Rand Paul does by comparison.
Well, let's hope he inherited the most important Paul trait.... to pander and mean it.
So far, it looks like Rand does.
Just as an interesting tidbit, a lot of people have openly wondered whether Ron Paul's lack of attacking Romney is a sign that there is an agreement in place to have Rand be Romney's VP.
That would actually be a brilliant move to unite the party, as both Pauls are pretty huge figures of the tea party movement. And "conservatives" would have to get behind Romney as well if they want to have a chance against Obama. And common sense might get a chance once again if all this bullshit rhetoric driven by talk radio and the fringes will stop or at least get less attention. Hey, one can dream - right?
I thought you said Paul was of no interest whatsoever? Is that Romneyspeak I detect?
I think we can agree that a Ron Paul Presidency is out of the question, let alone a nomination. The only way he can still make a "difference"(if we still have some idealists here :D ), is that he helps Romney who is the most promising candidate for the Reps - even after all his flip flopping. I would say this potential scenario would make the race for the presidency pretty interesting
EPT
