Posted on 09/26/2008 8:56:46 PM PDT by Salvation
It was NOT funny.
That man gave his life for his country and Obama used him for a prop and didn't even bother to learn his name.
It was the most disgusting moment in Presidential debate history.
I've been looking for an address for Frank Luntz to ask him that very question! I couldn't believe the Obama supporters when they said 'McCain stumbled and stuttered. What a crock! The first question Obama was asked, he looked as he was reading from a teleprompter. The words were nothing but memorized rhetoric. It was obvious that Obama was striving to keep from saying, "ah" and "uh" in the beginning, but the more flustered he got, the more they slipped out, and he was the one who stuttered and was uncomfortable. He was not presidential because he was rude...interrupting and talking over McCain when it was McCain's time to speak. He was arrogant with his smirks, and two or three times he tried to act as if he was making fun of McCain by giggling.
I didn't agree with Charles Krauthammer, because Obama didn't win the debate. Obama was not convincing with his comments...he had memorized the talking points, and got flustered when it got off his mark. It was obvious he had no idea who gave him a bracelet (if they did), he was trying to one up McCain, but his stammering gave him away and he lost the moment.
I am also ticked at Dick Morris for saying John McCain didn't address the 'crisis' we are now in, but he did. Maybe not as strongly as Morris would have liked, but he did say he would punish the wrongdoers...the greed, CEO, and corruptness. It was obvious he was speaking of protecting the taxpayers, and holding the guilty parties responsible for their actions. That could very well involve Chris Dodd, Obama, Barney Frank, Hillary, and other Democrats who received money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Dodd and Frank should have known what the two companies were up to.
I cannot believe I am supporting and defending John McCain! However, I think Obama is too dangerous. The media needs to vet him and find out what his agenda is, and who has promoted him to get where he is. We might all be more frightened than we already are if the media would do their job!
Wah-ha-ha-ha
Roosevelt houses?
Good work! We will see some more about this no doubt!
I have wondered too. Not so many facts in his commentaries anymore either.
Coming from someone who usually comes out for the Democrats, I was really surprised at Nina Easton tonight too.
She was much better than Krauthammer.
Yup....she sarted out solidly pro-bambi, so I was a little surprised with her final analysis.
PUMA
KRAUTHAMMER: I think this is a triumph of Scalia in a way that is very interesting itself. It is not just that he got a majority on this and he got his way on the gun ban and on gun control.
I think what is really interesting is that the dissent by John Paul Stevens, the most distinguished of the liberals on the other side, was a homage to Obama -- I'm sorry, I have Obama on my brain -- -because it was almost entirely based on originalism, i.e. it was about what was intended by the founders at the time of the writing of this amendment.
And Stevens consults, like Scalia, the contemporary dictionaries, documents, arguments, periodicals and debates, which is the conservative philosophy of the last 30 years which the liberal legal establishment had scorned for 30 years as well as being primitive and unusable.
And here is the liberals in this case arguing on the grounds that conservatives have argued in favor of for decades.
So I thought it was an interesting agreement on that, on the philosophical premise. On the actual evidence of what was intended at the time, it is a close call, and I tend to think that Stevens actually had the better of that argument.
But the evidence is murky, and there is no he definitive answer what was intended. Was it bearing arms only in a militia or bearing it in self- defense? And that's what it hinged on. And I thought the Stevens' dissent is really extremely interesting.
I think she along with Greta have turned PUMA!
On FOX this morning, some of their sources said Thursday that Harry Reid was SO angry he couldn't even speak! What would make him so angry? Typical Republican obstructionism (according to him) OR his own candidate proving himself an inbred idiot in front of a lot of influential people?
Okay. It will take much more than that. Why McCain did not bring up Obama's money from fannie mae and freddie mac escapes me. That would have been more than a shot across the bow.
First he said "95% of working families" and later he said "95% of Americans" and, yes, either one is a lie.
“**Obama further said that Ahmadinejad is not in charge in Iran.**
O lies again.”
Actually IMO he got that one right for a change.
IIRC Ali Khamenei is the Grand Ayatollah, however it’s spelled, and is the Supreme Leader of Iran. Nothing can be done without the express approval of the Supreme Leader Khamenei.
Good point on the Freddie and Fannie scenario.
Sure sounds like it, doesn’t it? They’ve been given instructions by PIAPS and the impeached one...dreams of 2012...
Can some of you military guys and gals set me straight on the tactic and strategy discussion.
Didn’t McCain bring it up three times or so?
EVEN CNN has refused to show it! That tells you how badly it stinks. I differ with what the Dr. said about skin cancer survival rates. My husband had a form and is still kicking nearly 10 years later and my Mom died of heart trouble after surviving skin cancer nearly 15 years. There are, obviously, variables the Doctor fails to consider!
I try to look at things as they are. McCain should have mopped the floor with that little turd. He didn't!
2 more debates...give him time...he’ll be critiqued by his campaign team...I mean within 5 minutes of the debate the ad came out and was exactly what was being suggested on the live debate thread.
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.