Posted on 10/07/2008 9:42:16 PM PDT by andrew roman
The use of the word "tragedy" to describe 9/11 shows that Obama doesn't get it. He doesn't understand what happened, what we're up against today, what we'll be up against ten years from now if we don't act decisively against radical Islam.
Andrew,
I mostly agree.
That format was terrible. There was no energy. There was no way for either guy to get into a rhythm, unless they wanted to get scolded by Tom Brokaw.
Obama and Odinga, Duo of Genocide in Kenya.
Watch the video. It’s 8 minutes long. The first 6 minutes give an excellent overview of Odinga’s bid for President and his socialist background. Obama’s role in Odinga’s candidacy begins at approximately 6:20. It is truly stunning and something that every American voter MUST SEE:
I counted two planted Q’s. One was on climate change, another one was on Bi-Partisan support. The MSM knows these subjects would make McCain look bad in front of the base. Hence, no questions on any social issues.
I found myself yelling at McCain to make the point that we need less regulation of private industry, but more regulation of government sponsored entities such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
To me, this was the big thing of the night. Obama was befuddled with his answer. He doesn't have a doctrine.
McCain Doctrine was clear --------Victory Doctrine.
Obama truly lost the debate right there. I couldn't believe that the FoxNewsChannel pundits did not pick up on it.
McCain the phoney is almost as bad as Obama the phoney.
He’s clueless. Conservatives have only two choices:
Forcibly take over the GOP or start over.
McCain is an idiot. We are doomed.
Obama said “MOST of you will remember 9/11”
Most?????
Iran vs. Israel [Bill Whittle - NRO]
Quote:
McCain: Of course we would come to their aid without waiting for the UN.
Obama: We would use "all our tools" and "sanctions" and "cost-benefit analysis."
So let me get this straight: Obama wants to preemptively attack a country without provocation in Pakistan, but refuses to commit to use military force to defend an ally after THEY have been invaded.
Got it.
Unquote.
Obama-zlam’s media czar chose questions “safe-zone” for their messiah’s talking points. Left no room for real battle cries or knock-downs. O’s time is still coming. Be afraid mr. o, be very afraid; you got a courtesy pass tonite, but the pitbulls are atraining at the leash for a breakfast of true champions(of freedom); which YOU, SIR, ARE NOT!
Obama didn’t say one single thing of substance, but McCain seemed to be pulling his punches.
He did try to tie Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac around Obama’s neck — but he said it weakly and onlyonce. He needs to say it more strongly and repeatedly. He pointed out the problems with Fannie and Freddie as early as 2002, tried to do something about them, but was rebuffed by Democrats who fervently defended those two entities. The second largest recipient of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac contributions was Barack Obama. Her and his party are a major part of the problem.
He and Sarah are both going at Obama’s false claim that he’ll cut txes for 95 percent of Americans in the wrong way. BO is for repealing the tax cuts of 2001 and for increasing the capital gains tax, among other things. This is an increase in your taxes that far outweighs any cut BO might gie you.
And tehy need to point out his shameful interference in Iraq, urging a slowdown in the wihtdrawal of troops and asking aliki to press for that. Taht is a Logan Act violation. Tie that in with his expressions of support for the war in his 2004 campaign, in which he told the Chicago Sun-times that withdrawing the troops would be “a disaster” and that “my position is about the same as George Bush’s.” Now all of a sudden, he’s against the war just when we’re on the cusp of victory.
Keep repssing energy issues. I would have mentioned that France and Norway get 80 percent of their power from nuclear energy and they store the wastes underground with no apparent ill effects. I would also have expressed support for clean coal, natural gas, and for the Pickens Plan — as long as T. Boone and his investors don’t ask for a gvernment handout to do it. (We should also get rid of the trade barriers against Brazilian sugar ethanol, but I wouldn’t mention that too much.)
He needed to hit BO’s inexperience on foreign policy harder.
And yes, he needed to talk about Ayers, Rezko, Wright, Rahid Khalidi, and so forth — perhaps in connection with Obama being the second largest recipient of Fannie and Freddie money (all of tehm showing his poor judgments in his corrupt friendships. That’s acharacter issue.)
But McCain will never do any of this because he’s too busy showing off how “bipartisan” he is. (Bipartisan — the Democrats and McCain.)
No, nothing. How do we get McCain to say what he is not believe, which is that government regulation invites corruption, because the regulatots can be bought off. To be sure, lobbyists bribe legislators NOT to regulate; but they also can bribe them to regulate the other guy.
Compromise these days is the GOP giving into the Dems premises.
Principles matter.
Period.
“Genial John” McCain is a wuss. He ran for President as an ego thing. He really doesn’t care that much about winning because when he loses, he will go back to the Senate and work with his “friends across the aisle” pushing for bi-partisan legislation that the Dems like. And the media will once again be his friend and he will bask in his increased place in history as a guy who got the party’s nomination. In other words, he will be another Bob Dole.
Maybe he was an American hero in the Vietnam War, but in this culture war, he is the guy who caused us to lose perhaps the most decisive battle because he didn’t have enough heart and gumption to fight. He sold us out. What a legacy!
The venue reminded me of an Infomercial-— 2 boring guys trying to sell cheap vacuum cleaners to a bunch of paid “audience”.
OK, first the format of the debate doesn’t fit the style of hitting Obama on Ayers, Acorn or any other radical association. Second, by not mentioning Ayers, Acorn, or any radical association he left the MSM to scratch there head wondering why John McCain didn’t do it and unintentionally brought up Ayers, Acorn, or any radical association in their own show.
I’m not so sure. I guess it would be foolish to disagree with the conventional wisdom put forth by the MSM that McCain is far behind and in desperate need of a “game changer.” But I will disagree given their track record (no, I’m not saying Townhall.com is MSM. If that it were so...)
I think McCain needs to show himself as he was tonight. Solid. Opinionated. Spry. Patriotic. Experienced. You can trust him to do the right thing and make politics secondary when dealing with the country’s problems. And you can also count on him to be vigilant about this nation’s security.
McCain is a known quantity. A solid pick. Sure, his Obama is this smooth talking guy, but he has no track record and very little history. While the conventional wisdom is that in a crisis, particularly an economic one, the incumbent party will get thrown out, I’m not so sure that’s the case in this election. Bush43 isn’t up on that stage asking for re-election. It’s McCain and McCain is his own man. Sure, Obama talks a good game, but how many politicians don’t?
I think certainty in political leadership trumps change in this election. With so much uncertainty in the economy and in the world, don’t we need certainty in the White House?
Obama hasn’t made a compelling case as to why McCain is not the more certain candidate.
Of course, this does not mean that the McCain campaign should stop attacking the certainty of Obama (who is the real Obama?). They need Palin to continue that line of attack. McCain should stick to his plan for America and continue to tweak Obama for his...lack of certainty by raising so many questions about him and his lack of experience.
No matter who wins, the public already knows that they will get “change.” But change that is steady and experienced will win the day, and the candidate for that change is John McCain.
I agree with you that McCain won. Period.
I can not understand why so many are saying “it was a tie” or “they both did what they needed to do”.....
Ah, COME ON THERE PEOPLE.
There was no knock out drag out fight. And there was no “I knew so and so, and you are not so and so” moment. But something did come out of this debate that I don’t think was there so MUCH before the debate.
How many people could follow McCain and know they were in good hands? How many people could feel comfortable in Barack Obama’s hands?
While there were no big surprises here, John McCain showed character, integrity, commitment, and leadership.
Obama showed he didn’t know as much as John McCain.
If that isn’t a BIG win for John McCain, I don’t know what it!
It should be replaced by the SECOND PALIN-BIDEN DEBATE.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.