On the eve of the Iowa caucuses, NBC News Political Director Chuck Todd disclosed that the media was poised to take a third-place McCain finish there and use it to catapult him to victory in New Hampshire. McCain actually finished fourth in Iowa, but on Good Morning America today we saw a perfect example of the phenomenon Todd predicted.
ABC declared that McCain is "surging," "rising in the polls," may have "the most momentum," used "The Mac Is Back" as its screen graphic, and portrayed Mitt Romney in a highly unflattering light. There was only one small problem with ABC's depiction of a McCain surge: the latest poll numbers from the organization that nailed the Iowa results . . . reveal that McCain slipped in the polls overnight and lost ground to Mitt Romney.
View video here.
Ron Claiborne reported from the snowy lawn of St. Anselm College in Manchester, NH, where ABC will host back-to-back Dem and GOP debates tonight.
RON CLAIBORNE: And John McCain? He is surging with just three days to go before the New Hampshire primary. John McCain finished fourth in Iowa but he may be the candidate with the most momentum in New Hampshire. He's been rising in the polls, and drawing large crowds.
Cut to footage of McCain.
REPORTER OFF-CAMERA: Are you the Comeback Kid?
JOHN MCCAIN: I hate that phrase because it was used by somebody else, some time ago. How about "the Mac is back"?
ABC was happy to oblige, adopting it, as you'll see, as a screen graphic.
CLAIBORNE: Romney comes into New Hampshire reeling from a second-place finish in Iowa.
Cut to footage of Romney telling a voter: "I'm looking for the win here. I need your help here."
CLAIBORNE: Romney has been hammering McCain with a steady stream of negative ads.
After playing a brief clip from a Romney ad, McCain was shown responding.
MCCAIN: Governor Romney ran negative ads, campaign against Governor Huckabee, it didn't work. I don't think it works here in New Hampshire either, and I advise him to say some things that are positive.
Alright, sounds grim for Romney, great for McCain. But how about that poll?
According to Zogby, which nailed the Iowa results, Romney remained steady at 30% in polling done yesterday. And McCain? He slipped from 34% to 32%. See Zogby poll results from January 4 here. So McCain has apparently lost ground to Romney overnight.
Some surge. "Mc-mentum" might show up in the next couple days. Maybe he does pull off a big win on Tuesday. But was ABC reporting facts on the ground -- or expressing its own innermost hopes? In any case, note how the report was entirely horse-race oriented. How does this serve the voter? What if the segment had instead been devoted to a serious examination of the candidates' positions on the issues? Guess ABC figured that wouldn't have been any fun.
Update | 1-05 10:22 AM
Compare and contrast ABC McCain "surge" with MSNBC story:
Poll: Clinton, McCain leads shrink in N.H.
—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.
Comments Policy
Just like the word "change"
January 5, 2008 - 10:47 ET by Roger the ShrubberJust like the word "change" will be the most over-used mantra of the Democrat(ic) candidates in 2008, it looks like "surge" will be the most over-used media mantra of 2008.
I can hear it now
January 5, 2008 - 19:20 ET by Scout FinchJust as Bill used Fleetwood Mac's "Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow" as his campaign song, I wonder which of the Dems will use Bowie's "Changes"?
Turn and face a stranger.....
Wow. McCain finishes
January 5, 2008 - 10:58 ET by motherbeltWow.
McCain finishes fourth but is "surging." Romney finishes second but is "reeling."
And apparently going from 34% to 32% is "rising" in the polls.
These guys have their own dictionary.
Romney "Surging" he just won the first delegate going to RNC
January 5, 2008 - 15:24 ET by Daniel BakerAh Wyoming, glad Im not living there anymore, but good job supporting Romney.
McCain finishes fourth but is "surging."
January 5, 2008 - 18:05 ET by ThalpyMcCain finishes fourth but is "surging" towards what? Senator McCain may be surging towards the red light as motherbelt's post suggests. I don't know what any kind of victory in Iowa might mean, but I suspect not much. Senator McCain's record of appeasement to the dark side (Senator Kennedy, Feingold, and others) will never be forgotten, or forgiven for that matter. His magnum opus( the McCain-Feingold monstrosity which was funded in large measure by Soros' Open Society Institute), Lincoln Savings and Loan, his imprisonment, and his temper are all issues which warrant a serious pre-election revisit.
Which universe is it in
January 5, 2008 - 10:59 ET by DaBirdWhich universe is it in where a fourth place finish counts as momentum, and a second place finish indicates someone as "reeling"? Persius Democratis?
McCain has about as much
January 5, 2008 - 11:00 ET by NewsbusterbrownMcCain has about as much chance of winning the GOP nomination as Ron Paul does. IOW, he has none.
McCain is an appeaser.
January 5, 2008 - 11:26 ET by RJNot to belittle the terrible trials he had as a prisoner of war, but I think the lasting mark it left on him is that he learned to be an appeaser.
I'm not suggesting that he gave in to his captors, but that, just to stay alive for those five and a half long, brutal years, he learned to tailor his reactions to avoid various forms of physical punishment and psychological attacks....a form of appeasement.
Fast forward to today and we see that appeasing liberals is one of the reasons the media finds him so appealing. (Of course, they call it being a "maverick.") IMO, that eliminates him from consideration for the presidency. I don't want an appeaser in the Oval Office.
I believe voters recognize this, and, in spite of the best efforts of the MSM, will never make him the nominee.
I think I'll start
January 5, 2008 - 11:32 ET by BlazerI think I'll start referring to two-faced buttkisser's as "Maverick's".
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
" The Cake is a lie."
What a load...
January 5, 2008 - 11:59 ET by SyriusTo paraphrase Dan Akroyd...
"RJ, you ignorant slut"
You wrote...
"I'm not suggesting that he gave in to his captors, but that, just to stay alive for those five and a half long, brutal years, he learned to tailor his reactions to avoid various forms of physical punishment and psychological attacks....a form of appeasement"
In one sentence you contradicted yourself by using "but that" and in so doing you labeled him an appeaser while being a guest at the Hilton. My dad flew two tours in 'Nam in A6 intruders. I got to know Fellows, Alvarez, McCain and a few others. I visit the Wall to honor his friends who are inscribed in the stone. I'd suggest reading 'P.O.W.' to actually find out what those guys went through in their 'stay' at the hotel in downtown Hanoi. McCain has the qualifications far ahead of anyone in this field. I wish him Godspeed.
Syrius
First of all conservatives don't hail the virtues of "open-mindedness". Secondly, conservatives listen to all points of view and then decide which is most correct. mattm
re: McCain is an appeaser
January 5, 2008 - 12:16 ET by RJSyrius, it might not be too late for you. There are excellent reading comprehension courses available. I urge you to take one, young man.
In the first place, there were no contradictions in my sentence.
In the second, I made it clear that I don't believe McCain had capitulated. I was talking about the lasting psychological damage left by five and a half years of imprisonment and torture.
In the third place, my thanks to your dad for his service. I come from a long line of service members, and I'm a vet, too....so I have nothing but respect and sorrow for what McCain went through.
That doesn't, however, give him a free pass to the presidency, any more than that fool, Murtha, gets a free pass for his outrageous behavior.
Pity that you didn't follow your dad's footsteps. You might have learned something.
RJ, coming from a woman...
January 5, 2008 - 12:32 ET by Syrius...thanks for your compassion. Knowing you as a woman, your
intuition into the psychology of a former POW was quite informative. As
a woman, you should know a woman like Hillary could never fully
comprehend such a difficult job as the Presidency of the US. Bush has
done a fantastic job, right?
Please don't get your panties in a twist about your contradiction, it's for all to see.
As
for following my father's footsteps...you do not know me, my
background, nor my clearance. I do enjoy poking fun at idiots that make
the fiscal conservative side of this party look bad. Using irony,
humor, and nutty comments make you all go into blather mode. Chill out
and don't get so uptight. You're making yourself look like "an ignorant
slut" to quote Dan again.
Syrius
First of all conservatives don't hail the virtues of
"open-mindedness". Secondly, conservatives listen to all points of
view and then decide which is most correct. mattm
Syrius, I'm going to say this ONE TIME
January 6, 2008 - 11:44 ET by RJYou know perfectly well that I am not a woman. I'm tired of you chasing me around the board with your immature nonsense that I am.
That's not because I care about your opinion, but because you disrupt intelligent conversation with your trolling.
I have never initiated contact with NB about a poster, but keep it up and I will ask them to "sanction" you in whatever way they see fit. If you have intelligent responses to my posts, then make them.
Otherwise, bugger off.
"We need a better class of troll here."
for saying it once
January 6, 2008 - 11:56 ET by botgthis is the second day it's been a recent comment
GoHunter08
Syrius, I for one do not
January 5, 2008 - 12:20 ET by BlazerSyrius, I for one do not question McCain's patriotism, and think it's shameful that there are those that do. There are those out there that plan on "Swiftboating" him if he start's to do too well. From his Wiki write up:
"McCain was immediately offered a chance to return home early:[33] the North Vietnamese wanted a mercy-showing propaganda coup for the outside world, and a message that only privilege mattered that they could use against the other POWs.[36] McCain turned down the offer of repatriation due to the Code of Conduct of "first in, first out": he would only accept the offer if every man taken in before him was released as well.[38] McCain's refusal to be released was even remarked upon by North Vietnamese officials to U.S. envoy Averell Harriman at the ongoing Paris Peace Talks.
In August 1968, a program of vigorous torture methods began on McCain, using rope bindings into painful positions and beatings every two hours, at the same time as he was suffering from dysentery.[36][33] Teeth and bones were broken again as was McCain's spirit; the beginnings of a suicide attempt was stopped by guards.[33] After four days of this, McCain signed an anti-American propaganda "confession" that said he was a "black criminal" and an "air pirate",[33] although he used stilted Communist jargon and ungrammatical language to signal the statement was forced.[39] He would later write, "I had learned what we all learned over there: Every man has his breaking point. I had reached mine."[36] His injuries to this day have left him incapable of raising his arms above his head.[40] His captors tried to force him to sign a second statement, and this time he refused. He received two to three beatings per week because of his continued refusal.[41] Other American POWs were similarly tortured and maltreated in order to extract "confessions".[36] On one occasion when McCain was physically coerced to give the names of members of his squadron, he supplied them the names of the Green Bay Packers' offensive line.[39] On another occasion, a guard surreptitiously loosened McCain's painful rope bindings for a night; when he later saw McCain on Christmas Day, he stood next to McCain and silently drew a cross in the dirt with his foot[42] (decades later, McCain would relate this Good Samaritan story during his presidential campaigns, as a testament to faith and humanity[43][44]). McCain refused to meet with various anti-war peace groups coming to Hanoi, such as those led by David Dellinger, Tom Hayden, and Rennie Davis, not wanting to give either them or the North Vietnamese a propaganda victory based on his connection to his father.[36]
On foriegn policy I believe he would be excellent as CIC and great for the military and the WOT, except for his perception of torture, but that one particularly hit's close to home for him.
Unfortunately concerning thing's like McCain-Fiengold and his stand on immigration his domestic policy absolutly suck's.
Domestic policy is the most important thing to me and I for one do not want a RINO-saurus as president.
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
" The Cake is a lie."
This POW treatment scenario
January 5, 2008 - 13:01 ET by Captain RepusThis POW treatment scenario shows the lunacy of the debate over 'water boarding'. In every war prisoners are mistreated, regardless of conventions. In the case of Viet Nam, physical torture very easily and quickly resulted in 'talking' by the captee, and there was little or no regard to 'rules' set out by Geneva or any other treatie. The tortured were left with permanent injuries and the information extracted was of little or no military use to the captors.
In the case of waterboarding there is NO physical injury to the target, the procedure lasts mere seconds and is almost always fruitfull, and the information extracted can and has saved many thousands of CIVILIAN lives. After the procedure, the captee returns to his cell to finish out his internment munching on well balanced nourishment of ethnicly correct menu, kicks back and reads his koran for the remainder of his internment.
At the same time, in spite of any conventions, our folks become the stars of snuff videos with our heads rolling in a pool of blood on the floor still gurgling with background music of 'allah is great, allah is great'.
P.S. John 'Keating 5' McCain is not any more qualified to be our president than most others just because of his airplane driving ability of 40 years ago or his years of captivity, admirable as these are, any more than Bob Dole was 10 years ago. We need new, fresh ideas and ideals in office, not bitter old men.
We are all...
January 5, 2008 - 15:44 ET by okiehawk44products of our backgrounds. Sen. McCain suffered more than most of us ever have but his captivity horrors should not give him status as this country's expert on the need for/effectiveness of waterboarding. Three (count them -- 3) people in the whole world have been waterboarded by America (other than our own fellow citizens who have undergone the procedure to better understand it) and the information gathered has greatly benefitted those in this country including Senator McCain and his lovely family. He understands this on some level and we must understand why he is opposed to anyone anywhere having to endure what he did. I understand that but I do not agree with his position on it. Let's be clear here. If we can no longer interrogate prisoners and we have no internationally accepted definition of non-uniformed/non-state controlled combatants of the ilk society is and will be facing then we should just kill them on the spot rather than take any prisoners. If John McCain had presented no use to his captives he would have been killed on the spot when pulled from the lake in North Vietnam and he would never have seen Cindy or his kids etc. Those 3 evil, poisonous scum that were waterboarded by the U.S. live to fight another day or live to see their wife and kids one day.
Well said, RJ
January 5, 2008 - 15:08 ET by eucherMcCain is not my candidate of choice - I like Thompson and Romney - but with the things we've recently learned about Huckabee (rumors of personal corruption -- quite a bit -- letting criminals go, raising taxes, offering illegals better deals than residents can get, inability to grasp the world situation) I actually prefer McCain to Huckabee. Huckabee is smooth and seems so sincere, but he feels very off to me, which is a shame because he is quick on his feet, a benefit our Republican candidate needs. But not at the expense of saying only what he thinks people want to hear - that is too HRC for my liking.
And come on people, when the liberal press likes a candidate, we should be very scared.
Anyway, I believe the GOP will nominate a more conservative candidate, and that our Republican will win in November. Middle America leans more conservative, despite the best efforts (and they've been grandiose!) of the media to convince themselves and us otherwise. I have to believe that we are too smart to fall into the trap of socialism or populism.
I think Tancredo's
January 5, 2008 - 11:39 ET by AJSHOPEI think Tancredo's endorsement may have given Romney a bit of a boost here in New Hampshire because I've seen a lot of Tancredo signs around here.
Unofficial NB Straw Poll on second choice!
January 5, 2008 - 12:54 ET by Jack BauerOkay -- most people posting seem to know who they will vote for in the Primaries (thank God the caucus has gone)
But here's an interesting question (well, interesting to me at least)...
For the sake of argument, let's assume that YOUR primary choice isn't the nomination...
Which winning nominated candidate would you NOT vote for under any circumstances in the general, even if it meant the opposing party candidate may win if you sit it out!
I mean seriously, you would NEVER vote for that or those person/s who is your party's nomination. You will NEVER be swayed.
Jack that's easy
January 5, 2008 - 13:00 ET by botgi would never vote for Clinton, Edwards or Obama
GoHunter08
botg -- uh -- take that as
January 5, 2008 - 13:02 ET by Jack Bauerbotg -- uh -- take that as read!
In the party you are inclined to support (not necessarily registered) dude!
Jack ultimately
January 5, 2008 - 13:07 ET by botgi will vote for the person most likely to appoint constructionists to the SCOTUS
GoHunter08
None, jack
January 5, 2008 - 13:03 ET by RJI repeat. NONE.
I would even vote for Ron Paul (Republican, not Independent) over anything the Democrats put up.
Sitting out counts as a vote for Socialism....and a vote against a conservative SCOTUS.
Agreed, RJ
January 5, 2008 - 13:07 ET by BlondeI've only missed one vote in my adult life....and that was a little local affair that I totally forgot about.
None of the socialists appeal to me...the only (D) I'd ever remotely consider for my presidential ballot would be Joe Lieberman. Ever. And not voting is never a consideratio for me.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Blonde -- again interesting
January 5, 2008 - 13:14 ET by Jack BauerBlonde -- again interesting response.
You know the MSM will try anything to drive a wedge and fracture the Republican and conservative vote. (Not that the GOP hasn't been doing a bang up job recently itself on gut issues)
I was wondering if the right thinking folks were going to oblige them.
Oh, they're trying Jack
January 5, 2008 - 13:22 ET by BlondeNote the big push for Maverick in NH. Funny thing is, though, the Indies are allowed to vote in the primaries there....effectively sucking McCain's backers into the Obama camp.
It's going to be ugly for the MsM's favorites again...it will be interesting to see how the media tries to spin their losses after Hillary & McCain go down for the second time.
Only an idiot would stay home against the socialist ticket we're sure to get from the (D)s.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
It only took the
January 5, 2008 - 13:29 ET by BlazerIt only took the Bolshevik's one night to cause 71 yrs. worth of damage. I cringe to think what damage an un-impeded socialist president and Congress puppeteered by the far-left influence in this country for 4-8 yrs. would do.
Alway's vote your conscience, but above all alway's vote. There are people in uniform who have died here and in foriegn land's we owe for that priveledge.
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
" The Cake is a lie."
So right
January 5, 2008 - 19:33 ET by Scout FinchI cringe to think what damage an un-impeded socialist president and Congress puppeteered by the far-left influence in this country for 4-8 yrs. would do.
Although I hope for Thompson or Romney, I'd vote for anyone with an "R" beside their name to keep any of the raving leftist loonies away from POTUS and making SCOTUS choices. Should Hillary win, God help us all.
RJ - interesting! Thanks for
January 5, 2008 - 13:09 ET by Jack BauerRJ - interesting! Thanks for playing.
Following up, Jack, sitting out is childish
January 5, 2008 - 13:30 ET by RJWe get our chances to affect the choice of our Presidental candidate in the locals and in the primarys. Because the specific candidate of choice for most conservative voters will be passed by, most will, therefore, be unhappy with the final choice.
I cannot understand how a "conservative" can sit by and help a significant lurch to the left by ignoring the implications of a loss of SCOTUS appointments.
Sitting out because the final candidate isn't "perfect" is childish.
It has to be seen as a marathon, not a sprint.
I agree RJ, but I think
January 5, 2008 - 13:47 ET by BlazerI agree RJ, but I think thier is a brewing consensus among conservatives that we shouldn't die a slow messy death, and that conservatives will grow complacent with an ease into far-leftism by the election of a moderate RINO.
The consensus being why go quietly into the night when a sudden jerk to the far left may shake people to thier senses.
I for one dont' agree with that principle, at least not wholeheartedly, especially with a leftist Congress as the ammo for a loaded gun leftist president
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
" The Cake is a lie."
Just for argument, botg...
January 5, 2008 - 13:55 ET by RJWe're pretty much in agreement, but I'd just like to point out that the best method of protesting the RINOs is NOT by sitting out the Presidental election.
It takes place before that.
Remember, "all politics is local."
RJ agreed
January 5, 2008 - 14:06 ET by botghence my tagline
GoHunter08
Ain't got jack, Jack
January 5, 2008 - 13:52 ET by acumenWhich winning nominated candidate would you NOT vote for under any circumstances in the general, even if it meant the opposing party candidate may win if you sit it out!
None, zilch, nada. The general election has a lot more to do than simply picking who will be sitting behind the desk in the oval office. When I consider all of the havoc wreaked on our nation by Carter/Clinton appointed socialist federal judges I shudder. Then there is Homeland Security, the State Department, the Pentagon, Intelligence(?) Services, etc, etc. The socialists in Congress telling me what kind of light bulb I WILL use is infuriating enough without having to consider all of the other whims of dems/socialists that would ride the coat tail of a dem/socialist prez.
That said, NOW is the time to prevent a rino from putting us in the uncomfortable scenario of even considering sitting at home on election day. And we best be prepared to fight a long hard primary slog against the demedia that will be championing some unelectable whimp to the GOP.
Jack
January 5, 2008 - 14:08 ET by shawn228I don't know If I would count because I have not voted for a Republican for over a decade, but the person that I would not vote for is Mitt Romney for the Republicans and Lieberman for the Democrats.
I was careful to be
January 5, 2008 - 14:17 ET by Jack BauerI was careful to be neutrally diverse for all our few non-conservative friends on board.
Any party can play!
Jack
January 5, 2008 - 14:24 ET by shawn228Looks like Fred Thompson is the only no RINO left. If he does not pull a miraculus comeback, a RINO will the the nod. Judging by the reponse of many on this site, many conseratives will stay home.
I would not say that is true for he Dems. They are united and will back whoever the nominee is.
If I had a vote, the
January 5, 2008 - 14:28 ET by Jack BauerIf I had a vote, the Fredster would be ma man! But I don't!
But like Dr King, I can dream.
Wow Jack
January 5, 2008 - 14:33 ET by shawn228I thought you were a American living abroad, I did not know you were a Brit. Thats cool, I have dual citizenship. American and Canadian.
Mine's already well-known.
January 5, 2008 - 14:28 ET by sarcasmoRudy. I've followed him since he was a hyperpolitical, power-hungry prosecutor stretching RICO's limits, and I dislike a great deal of what I've seen. Rudy won't ever get my vote. Fortunately for me & unfortunately for Fox News, he's doing terribly in the polls at the moment.
But I won't "sit it out," either. IMO none of my 3rd party votes is ever really "wasted" because they've all sent a message, even if that message occasionally happens to be an extended middle finger raised to BOTH "major" parties' candidates.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul. (All purpose anti-slander-link, sadly-needed these days...)
thanks sarc -- yes, if you
January 5, 2008 - 15:28 ET by Jack Bauerthanks sarc -- yes, if you believe the polls, it looks like you won't be in the position of Hobson's Choice anyway with your one no no.
Won't vote for
January 5, 2008 - 14:38 ET by Conservative VoiceNormally I am a anyone is better than a Democrat, especially for President. However, it would take a large amount of convincing to vote for Huck. If Huck wins I will most likely vote third party. The only other Republican that gives me pause is Ron Paul, only because of his foreign policy. But since his domestic policy far outshines all of the Democrat candidates, I would easily vote for Ron. Huck in my mind is a Democrat, except for his one issue, abortion...and that isn't enough to sway me.
McCain I would hold my nose, all others I would be OK if they won.
At least McCain doesn't
January 5, 2008 - 14:54 ET by AJSHOPEAt least McCain doesn't have some nationalized healthcare plan and he claims that he has seen the light on border security and the amnesty issue and says he was wrong.
Huckabee is just as socialistic and pro-amnesty as the Democrats.
Romney's healthcare plan is
January 5, 2008 - 14:58 ET by Conservative VoiceRomney's healthcare plan is not socialized medicine. It has the backing of the heritage foundation, so that should account for something.
Heritage, maybe...
January 5, 2008 - 18:20 ET by sarcasmoBut not CATO.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul. (All purpose anti-slander-link, sadly-needed these days...)
Thanks CV -- thoughtful
January 5, 2008 - 15:23 ET by Jack BauerThanks CV -- thoughtful response. It appears you are open to persuasion at least, even it's a tough sell for some candidates.
at least the most accurate
January 5, 2008 - 15:35 ET by Conservative Voiceat least the most accurate polling data ( because people put money where their mouth is ) has both Hillary and Huck losing ( though Hillary is by a small margin, Huck is at 14% )
http://www.intrade.c...
Now that much of the
January 5, 2008 - 13:24 ET by Captain RepusNow that much of the riffraff has been blown out of the field (except for Hillary), tonights debate(s) will FINALLY consist of meaningful questions, demanded answers instead of a the same old scripted diversions, and hopefully half the field screwing up and destroying their candidacy.
Of the current field, I would not willingly vote for any of these phonies except Romney.
New Hampshire owes Romney as every conservative does
January 5, 2008 - 14:21 ET by Daniel BakerHe stopped gay marriage in Mass. from being spread to every other state by finding and enforcing old laws. This action probably saved every state thousands of lawsuits. New Hampshire being close owes him the most.
His fight against people changing traditional marriage suggests his Supreme Chourt nominees wil be awesome.
Unfortunately...
January 5, 2008 - 14:27 ET by AJSHOPEcivil unions are now legal in NH as of January 1st. I know it's not exactly the same as gay marriage, but it's getting closer.
McCain should...
January 5, 2008 - 15:12 ET by okiehawk44McCain should join with Joe Lieberman and form the RINO & FDFS (former democratic favorite son) Party. McCain is almost a democrat (on almost all issues) and Lieberman is almost a republican (on American security issues only).
You won't get long odds on
January 5, 2008 - 15:32 ET by Jack BauerYou won't get long odds on a McCain/Lieberman ticket if he wins the nom!
That's a cert.
Visually that's gonna look like a Grateful Dead Reunion. Or maybe the Night of the Living Dead.
RJ, that connection you
January 5, 2008 - 15:38 ET by tracheostomyRJ, that connection you made was way over the line and you know it. I'm additionally shocked that the only ones to step up in McCain's defense were Syrius and Blazer.
If you said the same thing about an Iraq war veteran, you'd get wasted. What the hell were you thinking trying to tie in "appeasement" of your captors with appeasing a political party? What a gross generalization made from total ignorance.
There is ZERO validity to your comparison, and it's terribly cold, ignorant, and wholly without regards to sympathy.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
What, exactly, was over the line about it, trach?
January 5, 2008 - 15:45 ET by RJI treated the subject with compassion, not with derision or as an attack.
Other than a series of name calling, you present no argument as to what was wrong with my post. Are you claiming, for example, that those brutal five and a half years left no lasting psychological mark?
As displayed in the classic concept of Neville Chamberlain, an appeaser is an appeaser...and that's what I think McCain displays politically.
Interesting that you join the troll, Syrius, who also had nothing of substance to say about my evaluation. Obviously, what you and he have in common is your active and emotional dislike of me. :^)
P.S. Re-read Blazer's post. He posted about McCain's "breaking" in captivity (something I suggested didn't happen), and I don't think he was particularly disagreeing with what I said.
RJ: I treated the subject
January 5, 2008 - 16:08 ET by tracheostomyRJ: I treated the subject with compassion, not derision or as an attack.
Sure, you lead with the fake disclaimer. I suppose you truly believe that really got you off the hook there.
Other than a series of name calling, you present no argument as to what was wrong with my post.
No names were called. Your behavior only is in question here. You were absolutely the last NBer I would imagine to make such a crazy association like that.
Are you claiming, for example, that those brutal five and a half years left no lasting mark?
Point taken. I know exactly what you're saying. You weren't there. Have you ever even been to jail? What the hell? You're saying his political decisions are based completely on his wartime experience! I have some friends in Arizona who'd LOVE to see what you wrote.
As displayed in the classic concept of Neville Chamberlain, an appeaser is an appeaser...and that's what I think McCain displays, politically.
Based on an assumptive statement entirely. You connection is wholly unwarranted, and I can't believe other members here let that one slide past.
Interesting that you join the troll, Syrius, who also had nothing of substance to say about it my evaluation. Obviously, what you and he have in common is your active dislike of me. :^)
Insincere smileys aside, I'm following Syrius' reaction (yes, that's obvious on the shallow level)--but obviously not for the same reasons (if you weren't running with the easier excuse).
You can derail this all you want into an argument about whether it's personal or not, but that only erodes your own side in the matter. As evidenced by my own behavior, I don't troll you personally. I troll inane statements that are left largely undefended. You RJ, just happen to be the one to bring it up.
So let's keep it on topic. You accused Sen. McCain of making political decisions with a POW mindset.
1. He's back in the US.
2. He's got over two decades behind him.
3. He's probably had this accusation lobbed at him in the past and considered it.
Just because you see him on TV getting all chummy with Hillary, you decide to take the lowest shot possible and call him an appeaser with POW blinders on. It's completely callous and disrespectful of all POWs.
And I hope one of 'em is watching right now to pick up the ball. I never served in Vietnam and I don't think it's my place to school your sorry rear.
Take it back RJ. It was a cheap shot. Take it the hell back.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Wow, trach, you've gone off the deep end
January 5, 2008 - 16:41 ET by RJYour emotion-based dislike of me is on full display. Before you know it, you'll be joining Syrius on leon's "buddy list." Quite a triumvirate you'll make. :^)
In any event, there's nothing to "take back." If you're willing to actually educate yourself, quite a lot has been written recently about the lasting phychological damage that often accompanies simply being in a war for a few years. It's well known that being a prisoner of war increases the potential for damage exponentially.
I'm sorry if your rage blinds you to my compassion for McCain, but it leads to a question: who gave you the God-like powers to read my mind and judge whether or not I am compassionate toward him? Of course, that leads to following up with similar questions about the rest of your ugly attacks. Quite unChristianlike behavior, trach.
P.S. Other than your raging and your amazingly broad generalities, you've still presented no rebuttal to my points about McCain.
RJ's debate rule #1:
January 5, 2008 - 16:58 ET by tracheostomyRJ's debate rule #1: When all else fails, start trolling and work the crowd.
- Who appealed to my religion on this thread?
Oh. Yeah.
- Who's appealing to subjectivity rather than the statements themselves?
Oh. . .yeah.
- And who's never going to apologize for probably the one major gaffe that 3 of some of the most diverse NB members can agree to get behind?
Yep. Keep digging that hole there, you're doing a great job of it all by yourself.
Too bad your pride is too much to swallow all at once there. Blaming others doesn't make it any easier, either.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
You're funny, trach
January 5, 2008 - 17:06 ET by RJOk, I get it. You're "outraged."
But in spite of all your squealing and squalling, you've yet to make a factual rebuttal or a logical argument against anything I've said.
Question, trach: does it burn? does your hatred of me burn in your gut? ;^>
:sigh: And now RJ starts
January 5, 2008 - 17:39 ET by tracheostomy:sigh: And now RJ starts putting words in my mouth. It's not an argument of outrage, and not just because you "said so" either.
The three of us were pointing out that you made a fallacy of appeal to common practice, inductive argument, or possibly questionable cause. Take your pick.
Example: "McCain doesn't agree with waterboarding. I think this is motivated by his time spent as a POW. Therefore McCain is an appeaser."
WTF?
You are in fact ignoring three factual rebuttals and logical arguments from 3 NB members who are normally separated on other issues. Syrius was right. You did in fact contradict/flip-flop on your initial statements.
"I'm not saying A. (false disclaimer), but I'm essentially saying the same thing as A."
Just because you say it's otherwise, doesn't make it so. Geez, how many times have you heard that?
Appealing to the "hate" argument might work on others, but I think it's clear now that you're running too quickly to ad hominems to save you at this juncture.
You're only making it worse on yourself RJ. Honestly, take my advice and just stop digging.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemisIh on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Does it burn, trach?
January 5, 2008 - 17:56 ET by RJDies your anger toward me burn in your gut? ;^>
I'm STILL waiting for a rational, factual, argument against anything I've said, trach. Dare I hope for an unemotional argument?.....nah, that's as unlikely as the rest.
Here's a couple of easy ones, trach:
Please specifically point out my "contradiction."
Please specifically point out where I spoke of waterboarding.
The only one who has rationally discussed the issue or specifically responded to anything I've said is Blazer. Certainly your "buddy" Syrius hasn't, and neither have you.
:putting on coat and
January 5, 2008 - 18:04 ET by tracheostomy:putting on coat and hat:
I'm telling you (again) if you won't listen to me because you don't like my delivery, then listen to Blazer, with whom I completely agree with.
It's about the incongruous statements themselves. All your questions have been answered already, and at length. Appealing as if they weren't answered is dishonest, ignorant, and deliberately draws out the thread.
:walking to the door:
As proof that this really is nothing personal, I'm appealing to Blazer while walking away myself.
I don't care who you listen to, as long as you pull your head out.
:exits:
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Not true, trach. You STILL haven't made a rational argument
January 5, 2008 - 18:17 ET by RJor answered a single question. All you've done is repeat, over and over that I should believe you because you disagree with me.
Look how you RUN AS FAST AS YOU CAN from even the two simple questions I challenged you with.
Does your anger at me burn in your gut, trach?
You know better than that
January 5, 2008 - 18:30 ET by tracheostomyYou know better than that RJ.
Blazer agreed with me. ---> Therefore he understood my rational argument.
And you appear to be willing to listen to Blazer, but not to me. Therefore, this has nothing to do with the rational argument that is on the table. Reality has now set in and you are unable to spin this for the crowd.
I take no credit for owning the rational argument, only that it is delivered to you loudly and clearly. It doesn't matter who delivers it, only that you eat it. =D
Kudos to Blazer, FTW.
So in truth, it isn't burning it all. It is in fact quite soothing. Honesty is indeed the key word here. Enjoy your evening.
:closing door:
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Oh my gosh, trach...are you really going this time?
January 5, 2008 - 18:40 ET by RJAnd STILL not a single specific argument from you in this entire thread.
Instead we get yet ANOTHER of your signature posts: "I'm right and you're wrong....so there....nya, nya, nya."
:^)
"P.S. Re-read Blazer's
January 6, 2008 - 04:32 ET by Blazer"P.S. Re-read Blazer's post. He posted about McCain's "breaking" in captivity (something I suggested didn't happen), and I don't think he was particularly disagreeing with what I said."
Without trying to add life to an allready dead thread RJ, I think it's important to note that McCain's "breaking" was the direct result of him not giving in to his captor's, suicide being the alternative.
"Teeth and bones were broken again as was McCain's spirit; the beginnings of a suicide attempt was stopped by guards"
Now let's revisit your definition of "breaking":
"After four days of this, McCain signed an anti-American propaganda "confession" that said he was a "black criminal" and an "air pirate",[33] although he used stilted Communist jargon and ungrammatical language to signal the statement was forced.[39] He would later write, "I had learned what we all learned over there: Every man has his breaking point. I had reached mine."[36] His injuries to this day have left him incapable of raising his arms above his head.[40] His captors tried to force him to sign a second statement, and this time he refused. He received two to three beatings per week because of his continued refusal.[41] Other American POWs were sim