Posted on 07/21/2008 8:15:48 AM PDT by ConservativeMan55
Just a headline on Drudge now.
But I noticed a dust up about a month ago.
A McCain staffer wanted to look at the shot before he was interviewed.
The reporter and news staff objected and took video and then posted it.
http://www.myfoxstl.com/myfox/pages/Home/Detail?contentId=6993095&version=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=VSTY&pageId=1.1.1
I wonder if this is what Drudge is talking about or if this is a different incident?
From the article about the video:
(KTVI - myFOXstl.com) — Fifty-seven thousand dollars per couple one pricey dinner! That’s how much it cost to dine Tuesday night in West County with presidential candidate John Mccain. Before the fundraiser, McCain spoke with FOX 2’s Charles Jaco. But the interview almost didn’t happen because McCain staff members challenged St. Louis reporters about camera angles.
Do let me know when he challenges one of his pet illegal alien groups about the South West belonging to Mexico.
If he keeps ticking off the media, he’s toast. He’s expected to dance with the ones that brought him....
“former Sen. Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) and ex-Rep. Tom Downey (D-N.Y.) said “
Hard to argue against those two solid Republicans
“Can you supply us with the names of those who claim McCain “flirted” with the idea of switching Parties? Please don’t insult us with the names of liberals, ok? Either non partisans or Republicans will do and direct quotes only, not some unspecified “sources” Thanks “
I have a question for whoever posted that. Why would he talk with non partisans or republican about going over to the Dems?
Think about it.
McCain: `I think the Democratic Party is a fine party, and I have no problems with it, in their views and their philosophy,’’ he said. ``But I also feel the Republican Party can be brought back to the principles I articulated before.’’
``I believe my party has gone astray,’’ McCain said, criticizing GOP stands on environmental and minority issues.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1976952/posts?page=79
When John Draper wrote a book on President Bush last year, he focused on a number of areas involving Daschle. Most relevant today is the assessment of the political connection between Daschle and McCain and the mention of a Daschle visit to McCain’s Arizona ranch.
Daschle’s objective, wrote Draper: “To see if perhaps he could make an honest Democrat out of him (McCain). Depending on which staff you believed, Daschle either came very close to succeeding or never had a chance to begin with. Nonetheless, the flirtation did not go unnoticed by the White House.”
When reviewing the book, I asked Daschle about Draper’s comments.
“It is true that we were once close to bringing John McCain into the caucus. There are many who can verify that,” Daschle said.
http://argusleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080208/COLUMNISTS0102/802080318/1157/VOICES08
Huh? What's the chance that McCain would consult with Republicans about switching to a democRAT?
The premise that one must get Republican sources for a McCain switch to a democRAT is too laughable to consider.
The next time someone considers joining the Jihad, I guess they will consult/talk with the CIA as well?
It just seems funny that all the sources are Democrats
Did you read my post?
If so, you would also see that it contained confirmation from McCain's chief political strategist, John Weaver.
Are you saying that John Weaver is a democRAT? If so, then I stand corrected, John McCain never considered joining the RAT party since he is completely surrounded by them already.
McQueeg has already been thrown under the MSM bus — he just hasn’t realized it yet. The Maverick has been replaced by The Messiah Lord Hussein.
What exactly did John Weaver say and how do you know he said it?
It looked to me like the Democrats said he said it.
John Weaver is a Democrat.
McCain was approached about switching to Independent and caucusing with the Democrats but he rejected it out of hand. Nicely but definitively. "I am a Republican."
It is possible that Weaver stirred the pot on his own but there was never any chance that McCain would switch.
McCain was also offered the Vice Presidential slot and unprecidented power by Kerry and again he listened but politely refused.
So the guy surrounds himself with democRATs. The party switch would just formalize things I guess.
I say again the only reason to vote for McCain is OBama...and that may not be enough for some conservatives.
It’s enough for me!
It really is amazing how much money gets burned off during these races.I'm not convinced that is the way it all went down. I'm not convinced the worst version for McCain is the full truth, The media made McCain, now they figure the can break him.
Everyone knew it was coming except....John McCain.
Thanks for the reply AuntB.
I was just working on my on-going research of McCain and his foibles.
You provided me with some more sources.
Thanks again.
In effect, this makes the New York Times an "official" arm of the propaganda wing of the Obama campaign.
If there is one thing that conservatives can't stand more than McCain it is the media led by the New York Times Politburo.
This helps McCain with conservatives and he needs help with conservatives. of course that depends on how smart his campaign handles it and thus far they haven't shown any spunk at all. We'll see.
McCain editorial:
In January 2007, when General David Petraeus took command in Iraq, he called the situation “hard” but not “hopeless.” Today, 18 months later, violence has fallen by up to 80% to the lowest levels in four years, and Sunni and Shiite terrorists are reeling from a string of defeats. The situation now is full of hope, but considerable hard work remains to consolidate our fragile gains.
Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent. “I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,” he said on January 10, 2007. “In fact, I think it will do the reverse.”
Now Senator Obama has been forced to acknowledge that “our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence.” But he still denies that any political progress has resulted.
Perhaps he is unaware that the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has recently certified that, as one news article put it, “Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress.” Even more heartening has been progress that’s not measured by the benchmarks. More than 90,000 Iraqis, many of them Sunnis who once fought against the government, have signed up as Sons of Iraq to fight against the terrorists. Nor do they measure Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki’s new-found willingness to crack down on Shiite extremists in Basra and Sadr City—actions that have done much to dispel suspicions of sectarianism.
The success of the surge has not changed Senator Obama’s determination to pull out all of our combat troops. All that has changed is his rationale. In a New York Times op-ed and a speech this week, he offered his “plan for Iraq” in advance of his first “fact finding” trip to that country in more than three years. It consisted of the same old proposal to pull all of our troops out within 16 months. In 2007 he wanted to withdraw because he thought the war was lost. If we had taken his advice, it would have been. Now he wants to withdraw because he thinks Iraqis no longer need our assistance.
To make this point, he mangles the evidence. He makes it sound as if Prime Minister Maliki has endorsed the Obama timetable, when all he has said is that he would like a plan for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops at some unspecified point in the future.
Senator Obama is also misleading on the Iraqi military’s readiness. The Iraqi Army will be equipped and trained by the middle of next year, but this does not, as Senator Obama suggests, mean that they will then be ready to secure their country without a good deal of help. The Iraqi Air Force, for one, still lags behind, and no modern army can operate without air cover. The Iraqis are also still learning how to conduct planning, logistics, command and control, communications, and other complicated functions needed to support frontline troops.
No one favors a permanent U.S. presence, as Senator Obama charges. A partial withdrawal has already occurred with the departure of five “surge” brigades, and more withdrawals can take place as the security situation improves. As we draw down in Iraq, we can beef up our presence on other battlefields, such as Afghanistan, without fear of leaving a failed state behind. I have said that I expect to welcome home most of our troops from Iraq by the end of my first term in office, in 2013.
But I have also said that any draw-downs must be based on a realistic assessment of conditions on the ground, not on an artificial timetable crafted for domestic political reasons. This is the crux of my disagreement with Senator Obama.
Senator Obama has said that he would consult our commanders on the ground and Iraqi leaders, but he did no such thing before releasing his “plan for Iraq.” Perhaps that’s because he doesn’t want to hear what they have to say. During the course of eight visits to Iraq, I have heard many times from our troops what Major General Jeffrey Hammond, commander of coalition forces in Baghdad, recently said: that leaving based on a timetable would be “very dangerous.”
The danger is that extremists supported by Al Qaeda and Iran could stage a comeback, as they have in the past when we’ve had too few troops in Iraq. Senator Obama seems to have learned nothing from recent history. I find it ironic that he is emulating the worst mistake of the Bush administration by waving the “Mission Accomplished” banner prematurely.
I am also dismayed that he never talks about winning the war—only of ending it. But if we don’t win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president. Instead I will continue implementing a proven counterinsurgency strategy not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan with the goal of creating stable, secure, self-sustaining democratic allies.
And that proof is?
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.