John McCain, Anbar Awakening, Katie Couric, Coverup

Parent Cafe
1

<p>Don’t readers find this much more disconcerting than his other “Alzheimer Moments?”</p>

2

<p>What do you find disconcerting? I read it, read the posts attached more people are upset with CBS than him.</p>

3

<p>I think it is cumulative impact of his “Moments” that we should be concerned about. He may (may not) have had relevant foreign policy expertise in the past (though I fail to see it - he was ranking member of the Senate Commerce Committee regulating the Internet too, and failed to know how to use a computer), but it seems he may have difficulty now drawing upon it.</p>

<p>I say this with enough respect for him, knowing that he may be the next Pres. (however I vote this time, having voted for him once before.) If I were a Republican, I would be worried for him, and not because he might not get elected, but because he might.</p>

4

<p>Here’s my question…Obama has received an enormous amount of positive press coverage because he is running a better campaign, why is it that it is not converting into poll numbers? The Gallup has him up only 6% after a week of very positive press and McCain has received very little…Obama needs to question how he can fill stadiums with tens of thousands, McCain fills coffee houses, but in the end Obama is not leaving him in the dust? I saw something the other day that said Carter had the same phenom against Ford in 76, he even had a 30 pt lead in July and only won by 2% in Nov.</p>

<p>Obama is starting to remind me of Greg Norman…he gets the lead, but can’t close the deal!</p>

5

<p>Is it a bigger concern that he misspoke so horrendously, or that there was an attempt at a cover-up? I expect dishonestly from the media, but a barely possible president (sorry, can’t imagine Americans are that naive and masochistic to vote for him) making such an error is from the twilight zone.</p>

6

<p>BP, in the polls, the area of prime importance to voters, economics, shows Obama ahead by 14-15%.</p>

<p>Many Obama voters are young and only have cell phones and cannot be reached to survey.</p>

7

<p>I think it’s going to take some time for Obama’s visit to affect the polls. Obama is just now getting back to the US today.</p>

8

<p>Funny. I’ve been thinking just the opposite. Obama takes him self out of equation for 10 days, leaves all campaigning, positions on the economy, health care, etc. entirely to McCain, with no chance of Obama responding. And instead of going up, his numbers go down.</p>

<p>I readily admit I don’t understand polls (and I seriously believe McCain will be the beneficiary of a “race premium” come November which will never be reflected in the polls), but McCain had more than a free week to unveil his major plans for the country, and instead what we’ve seen are more “moments”.</p>

<p>(And I worry more about the “moments” than I do about the polls. He still hasn’t explained “Packers v. Steelers” - does he even remember being tortured?)</p>

9

<p>jjllc</p>

<p>This is very true, but it is also a double edge sword, many of them are college age and do not realize that they may need to fill out an absentee ballot, thus they are not counted. Second, younger voters statistically do not show up at the poll. I can still remember Paris Hilton making news b/c she was on the get out the vote drive discussing with Oprah in Oct. how important it is for young voters and how she was going to vote, only for the media to delve into her dirt and prove she wasn’t even registered and could not vote. </p>

<p>Statistically it is the older voter who consistently goes to the polls.</p>

<p>Secondly, Rasmussen, Princeton, UVA and several other pollsters have come up and said they believe the polls are running in Obamas favor, but if they use the primaries as an example, the margin is not large enough for Obama to feel safe. Reasoning: people are not answering truthfully due to the fear they may be seen as racist…look at Hillary in PA she had her internals at 12%, pollsters had her at 5-6, she won at 9+.</p>

10

<p>

</p>

<p>And as a Democrat, I am truly praying that he picks an intelligent, agile-minded VP and, if elected, that he cleans the house of Bush’s cronies and appoints a new slate of moderates rather than neo-cons. McCain these days reminds me a little of Reagan after they finally let on that he had Alzheimer’s. I give Sen. McCain the benefit of the doubt because it has been a long and at times brutal campaign “season” and he’s past 70 and has got to be feeling it, but there won’t be much rest as President and I doubt he’ll take more vacation time than Bush anyhow.</p>

11

<p>mo2 - appreciate your post & the sentiment behind it.</p>

<p>McCain has certainly campaigned longer & harder than anyone else - last summer he was pounding the pavement from Town Hall to Town Hall, carrying his own suitcases & addressing voters a few at a time (you gotta cover a LOT of ground like that!). It’s really amazing how much he was able to accomplish in time to pull out the nomination after the depths his campaign had sunk one year ago.</p>

<p>It’s really a testament to his stamina AND his ability to garner support from a few people at a time - anyone who interacts w/ him close up “falls in love” (he’s the REAL rock star! :)). </p>

<p>It’s another irony that Obama gets so much credit for “running a great campaign” when all of his large crowds have been gathered by including lots of appearances by other acts (the media always seems to omit that fact), while McCain has engaged in true “grassroots” efforts, gathering followers in neighborhoods & communities. Hopefully the numbers will eventually all add up!</p>

12

<p>

</p>

<p>First of all, I don’t think that it is accurate to say McCain is running a grassroots campaign. His supporters are no where near as active as Obama’s supporters.</p>

<p>Second, you keep on bringing up the point about there being other acts at Obama rallies. The reason why people in the media haven’t been making this point is because it’s sort of illogical. At these events, Obama is clearly the main act. I don’t think that’s disputable. When people choose to go to events, concerts, etc. they go based on whether or not they want to see the main act not the opening acts.</p>

13

<p>

</p>

<p>He’s been collecting many of his supporters thru small Town Hall type gatherings, literally from the ground up.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>In what way? You don’t know what’s going on “behind the scenes” for McCain. The polls are tightening. It’s a cumulative effect and gaining ground exponentially. Thre’s a lot of activity going on, (I could tell you about it, but then I’d have to kill you ;))</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>If it’s a “festival” type of concert, where several acts are on the bill, I would contend that the earlier acts attract much of the attendance. Sometimes the final act isn’t even scheduled until late in the schedule when organizers know a lot of people have already left the venue. Not sure if your argument that he is the “main act” is really valid.</p>

<p>In any case, I’ve been bringing it up mainly b/c the media never seems to mention that there even ARE opening acts!</p>

14

<p>[Checking</a> the facts on the Anbar Awakening](<a href=“http://blip.tv/file/1113026/]Checking”>http://blip.tv/file/1113026/)</p>

<p>And from the article referenced in the video:</p>

<p>

</p>

15

<p>StitchInTime:</p>

<p>I don’t see how that refutes the fact McCain is still wrong on the timeline… That’s not what the “surge” is.</p>

16

<p>What bugged me is that when McCain was confronted with the timeline, rather than admitting his mistake, he completely redefined the term “surge” (in a rather illogical and convoluted statement). See: [CNN</a> Political Ticker:McCain broadens definition of surge](<a href=“http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/07/23/mccain-broadens-definition-of-surge/]CNN”>http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/07/23/mccain-broadens-definition-of-surge/) </p>

<p>So much for “straight talk”.</p>

17

<p>calmom - that’s a good link.</p>

<p>“Broadening the definition” is nothing more than giving a more in-depth explanation of what actually took place in Anbar Province which led to the success of the so-called “surge”.</p>

<p>Credit must be given to the troops in the endeavor - w/out them, nothing else could’ve taken place.</p>

<p>This whole “issue” is just an attempt at “gotcha” and really doesn’t amount to squat. It’s “hardball” alright, but the Obama campaign doesn’t really have the heat they think they do. (You say McCain should admit he made some kind of mistake, but I contend that no mistake was made). It’s silly, really.</p>

<p>Straight Talk Express - Full Steam Ahead!</p>

18

<p>bz:</p>

<p>I agree. This mistake by McCain is insignificant compared to his voting to invade Iraq.</p>

19

<p>bz, the problem is the sequence:

  1. McCain attacks Obama for not admitting that the surge is working.
  2. Obama says repeatedly that he agrees that the surge helped, but only in combination with other factors, including the Anbar Awakening.
  3. McCain says Obama is ignorant, because the surge came first.
  4. After being confronted with a calendar, McCain explains that by “surge” he doesn’t mean the additional troops, he means the whole thing, including the Anbar Awakening.</p>

<p>Given that, how does he justify his attack on Obama? </p>

<p>Analogy:

  1. McCain attacks Obama for being unpatriotic because he doesn’t like vanilla ice cream.
  2. Obama says, vanilla ice cream is o.k., but rocky road and chocolate chip are good flavors too. If he had it to do all over again, he still wouldn’t order vanilla.
  3. McCain replies by saying that by “vanilla” he means to include all the other flavors, too. </p>

<p>I believe that in debate, this sort of argument is labeled equivocation - it is changing the definition of the terms midway through the argument as a way of avoiding a rational discussion.</p>

<p>Whatever McCain says, it is obvious that the surge that Obama opposed was the infusion of additional troops – which (a) did not “work” to establish the political goals established at the time, and (b) worked to reduce violence only in combination with other circumstances, including some which began well before the surge forces arrived in Iraq.</p>

<p>Note: I am aware that my analogy is not the best, because Sasha Obama has reported that her father doesn’t like ice cream at all.</p>

20

<p>

</p>

<p>Obama’s, and his supporters, thinking is analogous to checkers, while McCain offers the wisdom of chess. </p>

<p>[Anbar</a> awakens: The Tipping Point](<a href=“http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0PBZ/is_2_88/ai_n25400889][i]Anbar”>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0PBZ/is_2_88/ai_n25400889) clearly states that what started in Ramadi was a tactical event:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>The “strategic turning point” came in 2007:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>2007 is when the surge was implemented:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>McCain strongly supported the surge which made possible the “stunning security improvements in Al Anbar” in 2007. This is what he’s rightfully arguing the surge contributed to: a strategic not just a tactical success. </p>

<p>[Community</a> organizer Obama](<a href=“http://www.biography.com/featured-biography/barack-obama/index.jsp]Community”>http://www.biography.com/featured-biography/barack-obama/index.jsp) would have us believe that the “strategic turning point” in 2007 had nothing to do with the surge that was going on at exactly the same. Community organizer Obama asks us to take his military expertise and judgment ([which</a> is limited to making a 3 point shot on a base in Kuwait](<a href=“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j87k1j4CpOw]which”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j87k1j4CpOw)) to that of a Navy war hero and former member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.</p>

<p>This is the same community organizer that on the day the President announced the surge [said</a> the following](<a href=“http://wcbstv.com/topstories/john.mccain.barack.2.780200.html]said”>http://wcbstv.com/topstories/john.mccain.barack.2.780200.html):</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>[How’s</a> that working out](<a href=“http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jzxqARN0Huv38n5pgDfdBRwuoiZgD925HT7G0]How’s”>http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jzxqARN0Huv38n5pgDfdBRwuoiZgD925HT7G0) for you [Rock</a> Star](<a href=“http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,20061023,00.html]Rock”>http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,20061023,00.html)?</p>