I want the pre-scandal Newt, not the post scandal Newt. I want what Newt represents (the return of conservative values to the Senate) not necessarily a direct copy of him.
So I ask again: What was so good about the pre-scandal Newt?
Oh, and for anyone else who might be reading, none of the provisions of the Contract with America that Newt promised would be passed were actually passed.
I want the pre-scandal Newt, not the post scandal Newt. I want what Newt represents (the return of conservative values to the Senate) not necessarily a direct copy of him.
So I ask again: What was so good about the pre-scandal Newt?
Oh, and for anyone else who might be reading, none of the provisions of the Contract with America that Newt promised would be passed were actually passed.
Read the quote, the answer is right there.
Or you can just go to Fox News and look for my answer there.
I want what Newt represents (the return of conservative values to the Senate) not necessarily a direct copy of him.
Why does Newt the return of conservative values to the Senate? Wasn't Newt Speaker of the House?
Took you long enough to notice that.
I'm done dealing with you Joe. I'm tired of your style of attacking people personally when you are incapable of countering their arguments. That may work when you have someone on the witness stand but I'm done. I used to have respect for you Joe but it slowly started to go away when you resorted to that tactic. Even when you do answer an argument you throw in personal attacks.
I'm tired of your style of attacking people personally when you are incapable of countering their arguments. That may work when you have someone on the witness stand but I'm done. I used to have respect for you Joe but it slowly started to go away when you resorted to that tactic. Even when you do answer an argument you throw in personal attacks.
Translation: I can't defend my position, but I won't admit it. Please stop asking me to do it.
That video was a total fail. It was not "How to Speak Republican" it was "How to answer an argument with a personal attack". I was expecting something funny and full of satire like a Colbert clip and I all I see is fail.
Joe asked for evidence to back up Steve's claim. Steve dodged the issue, saying he liked the idea of Newt rather than the person itself, and made an error (which was a basic part of his argument). Joe caught that error. That is not an ad hominem attack. In fact, Steve's attack on Joe (the erronious claim of attacking his character) was, in itself, an ad hominem attack.
Now, back to our regularly scheduled argument.
I support Obama, but only on the hope that he will deliver on his promises. There is evidence that he will, from his past campaigns (which had the same message). I frankly don't see how anyone can possibly support McCain. I mean, he's against Net Neutrality. Gotdamn.
Now that was a much better video! It clearly used McCain's own words against him and did not appear to take any of those words out of context (as the 100 years in Iraq comment was taken out of context).
I don't want McCain as President and I don't want Obama as President. Yeah, I'm pretty much screwed either way.
Obama campaign manager David Plouffe released a statement attacking McCain for playing politics. "Apparently they would rather contrive a political issue than foster a genuine discussion about the future of our country," Plouffe said. McCain spokesman, Tucker Bounds, quickly struck back with a zinger. "Barack Obama requires more preconditions to meet with voters and John McCain than he does Mahmoud Ahmadinejad," he said, referencing the Iranian president.
I have to side with the McCain guy on this one. If Obama is such a great candidate for President why is he scared of doing these "town hall" style debates? If he truly can run rings around McCain he should be jumping at the chance to go toe-to-toe with McCain in one of these situations. My guess is that Obama's handlers are scared not of McCain but of the idea that the people in the audience may throw questions that they do not want Obama to have to answer.
I also understand the Obama campaign's belief that even meeting with McCain gives him free publicity and gets his name back into the minds of those who may have forgotten he even exists. But, if Obama is truly the superior candidate that he claims to be it should only take one town hall debate to blow McCain cleanly out of the water and sink his campaign. The other question is one of why is Obama getting so much free exposure via the press compared to McCain?
I remember hearing on an interview with some Republican members of Congress that they have trouble getting their press conferences covered by the media. They put out a press release and a handful of reporters show up. The Democrats put out a press release and it's on the 5:00 PM news. How do you compete when the primary news source for the majority of the country chooses not to report on the positive things you do?
So why not agree to a 50/50 debate schedule? Let each campaign lay out how half of the debates will go and then just have them. The more opportunities to see these two go head-to-head the better, right?
Now I'm not exactly sure of why Obama isn't doing the town hall style of campaign but I personally find it reassuring. The last one I saw of those was at the Bush reelection campaign at it was probably the most useless thing I have ever seen. The questions all boiled down to, "Mr. President, why are you so awesome." I find that it’s too easy to stack the questions to the candidate gets all off the least challenging ones, negating the use of the town hall of the first place.
If they actually let anyone ask any question at these Town Hall things, then I would agree that avoiding them would be bad. The thing is, no presidential candidate in memory has ever actually had to face unexpected or difficult questions. Every candidate will make relatively the same number of appearances, and campaign as much as they want to. It really doesn't matter that much exactly where and when they give their indirect answers to pre-prepared questions.
Bill Clinton actually had the skills to handle questions unprepared, but he didn't demonstrate that skill until after his terms were up. I submit that video of the 9/11 conspiracy nut heckling him as evidence.
Did McCain ever agree to the Lincoln-Douglass style debates that the Obama camp proposed a while back?
No, he's holding out for Obama to agree to more than a single town hall style meeting (on July 4th). I think the McCain camp's worry is that having it on July 4th would translate into no one watching it.
I found it interesting that Obama made sure to mention that he had recently been involved in a town hall style Q&A; with voters when he gave his Father's Day speech.
@Justin - Yes, the ones where the questions are pre-approved always suck. I recall a college student getting very pissed off at a Hillary Town hall event where she was forced to ask some stupid question about pearls or diamonds.
This could be fixed by allowing the opposing candidate to pick who asks the next question.
Obama: ...and that's my answer. [looking around room]. You, yeah you in the 'Rupugnicants shirt'! I want you to ask the next question to my friend John McCain.
McCain: ... OK, that's my answer. [looking around room]. Rex Tillerson! I didn't expect to see you here, why don't you ask Obama the next question...
No, he's holding out for Obama to agree to more than a single town hall style meeting (on July 4th). I think the McCain camp's worry is that having it on July 4th would translate into no one watching it.
Sounds like Obama isn't scared of having these debates then. He has agreed to at least one and one that's in the near future. Like you said it might only take one to blow out McCain and they HAVE agreed to at least that (by your own words, I haven't seen any sources). It's clear that by refusing to debate Obama on the 4th that he's just pandering for free air time and this isn't an issue of Obama not being able to take the heat. Sounds to me like you are just trying to flame on Obama. Being the non-partisan that you are and seeing as how you "hate" both candidates, how come you own post news stories that you feel are detrimental to Obama and not McCain? I have yet to see you make disparaging remarks against McCain.
Steve, your premise is flawed. There is no indication that Obama is "scared" of town hall meetings. There is every indication that he has just now mathematically won the Democratic nomination after a drawn-out showdown that McCain didn't have to deal with. So what you're really saying is, "Hey guys, why has McCain had all this spare time to mouth off while Obama's been working?" It's pretty easy to sit around and not draw crowds like McCain if you don't have a direct opponent. Obama's had a week -- one week! -- to get past the Clinton bout, while McCain's been resting on his laurels and being largely ignored even by his own party.
No, he's holding out for Obama to agree to more than a single town hall style meeting (on July 4th). I think the McCain camp's worry is that having it on July 4th would translate into no one watching it.
Sounds like Obama isn't scared of having these debates then. He has agreed to at least one and one that's in the near future. Like you said it might only take one to blow out McCain and they HAVE agreed to at least that (by your own words, I haven't seen any sources). It's clear that by refusing to debate Obama on the 4th that he's just pandering for free air time and this isn't an issue of Obama not being able to take the heat. Sounds to me like you are just trying to flame on Obama. Being the non-partisan that you are and seeing as how you "hate" both candidates, how come you own post news stories that you feel are detrimental to Obama and not McCain? I have yet to see you make disparaging remarks against McCain.
You seem like a wolf in sheep's clothing.
As far as I can tell from what I have read McCain's camp did not agree to the one town hall debate because that is all they would have gotten. It's not a case of "let's start with these two debates and then negotiate more" but a case of, "this is what we will do between now and election day." I could be wrong but I can only go by what I hear on the radio and read on the web.
Why don't I post more anti-McCain stuff? Other people on here post it before I get the chance too. I did a Google News search for Obama and McCain and Obama got about 150K results to 125K for McCain.
@Jason - I'm having trouble reading what you wrote.
"The idea of joint town halls is appealing and one that would allow a great conversation to take place about the need to change the direction of this country," he said in a statement released by the Obama campaign.
"We would recommend a format that is less structured and lengthier than the McCain campaign suggests, one that more closely resembles the historic debates between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas. But, having just secured our party's nomination, this is one of the many items we will be addressing in the coming days and look forward to discussing it with the McCain campaign."
McCain challenges Obama to town hall debates. From what I understand about the L-D debates they were more of a "I speech, you speech, I speech" format than one of taking questions from an audience.
I think [opinion] that the reasoning in the Obama camp is two-fold:
1. Obama is better at giving a speech than doing a back-and-forth taking questions from the audience. Why play to McCain's strength and Obama's weakness? 2. Why give McCain any free publicity? With Obama doing as well as he is why help McCain get his message out in a format that he is comfortable with?
As far as I can tell from what I have read McCain's camp did not agree to the one town hall debate because that is all they would have gotten. It's not a case of "let's start with these two debates and then negotiate more" but a case of, "this is what we will do between now and election day." I could be wrong but I can only go by what I hear on the radio and read on the web.
Again, so this isn't an issue of the actually issues or Obama being scared but McCain just pandering for more free air time. Do you have any evidence that Obama is scared of these debates?
Though initially receptive to the idea of joint town halls, the Obama campaign has so far opted to treat McCain's ambitious proposal as a calculated political threat, not a high-minded invitation to improve the democratic process. On Friday, the Obama campaign said that it would agree to a single town hall, on the Fourth of July, and an additional forum on foreign policy, a counteroffer that McCain quickly deemed unacceptable. The Obama camp may have genuine concerns about how their candidate will stack up against McCain in such a format. But they are also well aware that so many joint appearances only help McCain, who badly trails Obama in fundraising, wrack up the free media exposure he needs to keep pace with his opponent.
I'll take back "scared" and instead simply say that the Obama camp, being as ahead as it is, sees no reason to use a debate format that has the potential to show McCain in a more favorable light. From a purely political stance this makes perfect sense.
It can backfire if McCain somehow makes the, "Obama's too good to talk to regular Americans" line stick.
I have seen videos of Obama giving speeches and doing the informal "town hall" style of event. Giving speeches is clearly where he owns the crowd. When he descends to Q&A; with a crowd his words become full of pauses, ums and ahs. He sounds less elegant.
I have not watched videos of McCain giving speeches or interacting in the "town hall" format so he may be even worse than Obama. I don't know. I can't imagine his campaign would be pushing the issue so hard if he really sucked at town hall events.
I personally prefer seeing candidates take questions from an audience but not if those questions are pre-approved. I can understand laying out some ground rules for the questions (no kooky/conspiracy questions) but otherwise the citizens should be able to ask what is on their minds.
Cindy McCain, who earlier this year had to apologize for plagiarizing a recipe for passion fruit mousse from Food Network, went for oatmeal butterscotch cookies.
At the end of the week, Cindy McCain's recipe seemed to be slicing through the competition, with one online reader complaining that he had had to go out specially to buy Amaretto so his wife could bake Michelle Obama's treats.
That has to be a planted comment designed to make it appear that even the cookies Obama eats are elitist.
This is the type of guy that McCain courts for VP. Newt Gingrich thinks he's great too. Here's what he has to say about evolution:
I don’t think students learn by us withholding information from them. … I want them to see the best data. I personally think human life and the world we live in wasn’t created accidentally. I do think that there’s a creator. … Now the way that he did it, I’d certainly want my kids to be exposed to the very best science. I don’t want any facts or theories or explanations to be withheld from them because of political correctness.
On Monday, GOP presidential candidate John McCain made lifting the federal ban on offshore oil and gas development a key part of his energy plan. McCain said states should be allowed to pursue energy exploration in waters near their coasts and get some of the royalty revenue.
Sen. Barack Obama, the Democratic candidate for president, opposes lifting the ban on offshore drilling and says that allowing exploration now wouldn't affect gasoline prices for at least five years.
I was just reading some news about McCain wanting to give states back the power to decide whether or not to allow oil drilling in theirs states and coastal waters. Yeah, finally something I can support! In one of the articles there was an Obama quote along the lines of, "that may make a difference in 5 years, what about now?" Now? What about 5, 10, even 20 years ago when people were lobbying for more drilling in the US?
What I am eagerly looking for is for Obama or McCain to address the falling value of the dollar and its effect on the price of oil. I don't expect either of them to address that issue because that puts the blame on government and not big oil. I have to imagine that the Obama camp must have investigated the idea of pinning the falling dollar on Bush but they probably found it to be just as much Congress's fault as it is the President's fault. That and it would paint government as the problem and not big oil/oil speculators.
Another article mentioned that the current ban on drilling is due in part to an Executive Order that G.H. Bush wrote, Clinton extended and even GWB extended. I find it very disingenuous that GWB would be hollering for more drilling while this Executive Order has his thumbprint on it.
Congress imposed the drilling moratorium in 1981 and has extended it each year since, by prohibiting the Interior Department from spending money on offshore oil or gas leases in virtually all coastal waters outside the western Gulf of Mexico and in some areas off Alaska.
President George H.W. Bush issued a parallel executive drilling ban in 1990, which was extended by President Clinton and then by the current president until 2012.
Bush has been considering lifting the executive ban as a symbolic move to get Congress to take action, but he decided against doing so for the time being, said an official who spoke on condition of anonymity because internal deliberations were involved.
I was just reading some news about McCain wanting to give states back the power to decide whether or not to allow oil drilling in theirs states and coastal waters. Yeah, finally something I can support! In one of the articles there was an Obama quote along the lines of, "that may make a difference in 5 years, what about now?" Now? What about 5, 10, even 20 years ago when people were lobbying for more drilling in the US?
How does this help us in the long run, either? It just continues our dependence on a non-renewable resource that is the leading cause of pollution and global warming? Moreover, a large amount of the oil that the U.S. produces is sold overseas, specifically Asia (source can be found at NPR's website - I don't have the link because I read it days ago). Why drill more (which poses a huge ecological threat) when we can just utilize the oil we already produce, rather than selling it in Asia? Why? Because the oil companies care about profits only (and do not quote me that they only make a 10% profit, because 10% of obscene amounts is still obscene amounts), and we continue to elect people that allow them to operate as if they were selling blue-jeans rather than a precious utility.
I have to imagine that the Obama camp must have investigated the idea of pinning the falling dollar on Bush but they probably found it to be just as much Congress's fault as it is the President's fault. That and it would paint government as the problem and not big oil/oil speculators.
No, the reality is that it's the fault of the American people. Most of the problems we have are the fault of the people as a whole. You just can't expect to get elected if you speak that sort of truth. If you tell people they are responsible for their own suffering, they sure aren't going to do you any favors. More and more I think that the elected representatives aren't people we choose to wield power for good. They are people we choose to be scapegoats for problems we create and refuse to fix.
the elected representatives aren't people we choose to wield power for good. They are people we choose to be scapegoats for problems we create and refuse to fix.
Thus the inherent problem with modern representative democracy...
Comments
Oh, and for anyone else who might be reading, none of the provisions of the Contract with America that Newt promised would be passed were actually passed.
Or you can just go to Fox News and look for my answer there.
I'm done dealing with you Joe. I'm tired of your style of attacking people personally when you are incapable of countering their arguments. That may work when you have someone on the witness stand but I'm done. I used to have respect for you Joe but it slowly started to go away when you resorted to that tactic. Even when you do answer an argument you throw in personal attacks.
Joe asked for evidence to back up Steve's claim. Steve dodged the issue, saying he liked the idea of Newt rather than the person itself, and made an error (which was a basic part of his argument). Joe caught that error. That is not an ad hominem attack. In fact, Steve's attack on Joe (the erronious claim of attacking his character) was, in itself, an ad hominem attack.
Now, back to our regularly scheduled argument.
I support Obama, but only on the hope that he will deliver on his promises. There is evidence that he will, from his past campaigns (which had the same message). I frankly don't see how anyone can possibly support McCain. I mean, he's against Net Neutrality. Gotdamn.
I don't want McCain as President and I don't want Obama as President. Yeah, I'm pretty much screwed either way.
I have to side with the McCain guy on this one. If Obama is such a great candidate for President why is he scared of doing these "town hall" style debates? If he truly can run rings around McCain he should be jumping at the chance to go toe-to-toe with McCain in one of these situations. My guess is that Obama's handlers are scared not of McCain but of the idea that the people in the audience may throw questions that they do not want Obama to have to answer.
I also understand the Obama campaign's belief that even meeting with McCain gives him free publicity and gets his name back into the minds of those who may have forgotten he even exists. But, if Obama is truly the superior candidate that he claims to be it should only take one town hall debate to blow McCain cleanly out of the water and sink his campaign. The other question is one of why is Obama getting so much free exposure via the press compared to McCain?
I remember hearing on an interview with some Republican members of Congress that they have trouble getting their press conferences covered by the media. They put out a press release and a handful of reporters show up. The Democrats put out a press release and it's on the 5:00 PM news. How do you compete when the primary news source for the majority of the country chooses not to report on the positive things you do?
So why not agree to a 50/50 debate schedule? Let each campaign lay out how half of the debates will go and then just have them. The more opportunities to see these two go head-to-head the better, right?
Bill Clinton actually had the skills to handle questions unprepared, but he didn't demonstrate that skill until after his terms were up. I submit that video of the 9/11 conspiracy nut heckling him as evidence.
I found it interesting that Obama made sure to mention that he had recently been involved in a town hall style Q&A; with voters when he gave his Father's Day speech.
@Justin - Yes, the ones where the questions are pre-approved always suck. I recall a college student getting very pissed off at a Hillary Town hall event where she was forced to ask some stupid question about pearls or diamonds.
This could be fixed by allowing the opposing candidate to pick who asks the next question.
Obama: ...and that's my answer. [looking around room]. You, yeah you in the 'Rupugnicants shirt'! I want you to ask the next question to my friend John McCain.
McCain: ... OK, that's my answer. [looking around room]. Rex Tillerson! I didn't expect to see you here, why don't you ask Obama the next question...
You seem like a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Why don't I post more anti-McCain stuff? Other people on here post it before I get the chance too. I did a Google News search for Obama and McCain and Obama got about 150K results to 125K for McCain.
@Jason - I'm having trouble reading what you wrote. McCain challenges Obama to town hall debates. From what I understand about the L-D debates they were more of a "I speech, you speech, I speech" format than one of taking questions from an audience.
I think [opinion] that the reasoning in the Obama camp is two-fold:
1. Obama is better at giving a speech than doing a back-and-forth taking questions from the audience. Why play to McCain's strength and Obama's weakness?
2. Why give McCain any free publicity? With Obama doing as well as he is why help McCain get his message out in a format that he is comfortable with?
It can backfire if McCain somehow makes the, "Obama's too good to talk to regular Americans" line stick.
I have seen videos of Obama giving speeches and doing the informal "town hall" style of event. Giving speeches is clearly where he owns the crowd. When he descends to Q&A; with a crowd his words become full of pauses, ums and ahs. He sounds less elegant.
I have not watched videos of McCain giving speeches or interacting in the "town hall" format so he may be even worse than Obama. I don't know. I can't imagine his campaign would be pushing the issue so hard if he really sucked at town hall events.
I personally prefer seeing candidates take questions from an audience but not if those questions are pre-approved. I can understand laying out some ground rules for the questions (no kooky/conspiracy questions) but otherwise the citizens should be able to ask what is on their minds.
WTF? That has to be a planted comment designed to make it appear that even the cookies Obama eats are elitist.
What I am eagerly looking for is for Obama or McCain to address the falling value of the dollar and its effect on the price of oil. I don't expect either of them to address that issue because that puts the blame on government and not big oil. I have to imagine that the Obama camp must have investigated the idea of pinning the falling dollar on Bush but they probably found it to be just as much Congress's fault as it is the President's fault. That and it would paint government as the problem and not big oil/oil speculators.
Another article mentioned that the current ban on drilling is due in part to an Executive Order that G.H. Bush wrote, Clinton extended and even GWB extended. I find it very disingenuous that GWB would be hollering for more drilling while this Executive Order has his thumbprint on it. Bush looks offshore for remedy to high oil prices