If they get really nasty with each other, maybe Ron Paul will come out on top.

This is pretty interesting. We really don't know how effective Obama can be in an election where the gloves get taken off. I've watched quite a few of the earlier debates with Hillary. Do not make the mistake of thinking the last few debates with Hillary reflect on his ability to debate. The truth is, Obama can systematically dismantle her if the gloves came off.. But Hillary was the only one taking the gloves off. The reality is, he has been playing nice to prevent alienating her base (which he will need).

But with McCain...Well, I feel sorry for him. The gloves are going to come off. If I was McCain, there is no way in hell I'd debate him.

"I'm going to float like a butterfly, sting like a bee."

B-b-was the S&L scandal that taught McCain the danger of corruption in Washington! That's why he is against earmarks today; he's going to change things.

But everyone did that at the time!

And WIGHT! DON'T FORGET ABOUT HIS CRAZY PREACHER!!!

damn...I can't type tonight for shiat

From the noted right-wing news site PBS: "The Senate Ethics Committee concluded that Glenn and McCain's involvement in the scheme was minimal and dropped the charges against them. In August 1991, the committee ruled that the other three senators had acted improperly in interfering with the Federal Home Loan Banking Board's investigation."

Link (new window)

I see a lot of traction for this story.

Two words, O-man:

"Chicago Democrat."

cirby: "Chicago Democrat."

He was a state senator; he's not city of Chicago, which is an entirely different animal.

quizybuck: McCain's involvement in the scheme was minimal

"Your honor I only drove the getaway car. I never even entered the bank while they were robbing it. My involvement was minimal."

Shaggy_C: cirby: "Chicago Democrat."

He was a state senator; he's not city of Chicago, which is an entirely different animal.

He is a product of Emil Jones. Obama is part of the Daley/Democrat Chicago machine.

FTA:
"If Barack Obama doesn't have the strength to stand up to his own standards, how is he going to stand up for hardworking Americans?" said Tucker Bounds, a spokesman for Mr. McCain.

Did he really say that? Wow, thats like someone sincerely saying "Won't someone please think of the children!"

MickCollins: He is a product of Emil Jones. Obama is part of the Daley/Democrat Chicago machine.

Unless you're from Chicago, I don't think you could possibly understand politics here.

FINALLY!

LET THE MAIN FIGHT BEGIN!!

If I was McCain, there is no way in hell I'd debate him.

Oh I believe it, especially since they will have very real and distinct policy differences to talk about. Outside of the fact that Obama was probably holding back a bit to avoid alienating democrats that backed Hillary, they literally have 90% of the same platform. Those debates were really a contest of who was presenting the same policies in a more appealing fashion, and who could show they had the ability to carry out said policies.

McCain's arguements of lack of experience will ring hollow when Obama goes to town on McCain and (sorry to say it) makes him look old by going head to head on actual policy and forcing McCain to defend his positions (and recent flip-flopping on many of them).

Harvard law Review president vs. my Admiral father pulled some strings and I still finished near the bottom of my class? Ya I don't think so. Debates play right into Obama's strengths. McCain certainly has strengths of his own, and I'm sure the race will be tighter than either side will admit. I just don't think it's in the best interests of McCain to go head-to-head with Obama too often.

Oh god, here we go again. More character assassination.

SemperLieSuckah: Oh god, here we go again. More character assassination.

Shaggy_C: MickCollins: He is a product of Emil Jones. Obama is part of the Daley/Democrat Chicago machine.

Unless you're from Chicago, I don't think you could possibly understand politics here.

I live in Chicago atm. Go read John Kass's columns in the Tribune about Emil Jones and the Illinois Combine. Emil Jones lives in Chicago and is part of the apparatus of corruption. Hell, he blocked a bipartisan bill in the Illinois Senate to investigate corruption. And Jones is Obama's political "Godfather".

quizybuck: From the noted right-wing news site PBS: "The Senate Ethics Committee concluded that Glenn and McCain's involvement in the scheme was minimal and dropped the charges against them. In August 1991, the committee ruled that the other three senators had acted improperly in interfering with the Federal Home Loan Banking Board's investigation."

If you look closer at McCain's history, it's a piece of a broader story. It doesn't seem to me that McCain is lying when he promises integrity and honor and so forth; it really seems as though he's unaware of the potential conflicts of interest that these sorts of associations bring. That, more than the ridiculous implication of an affair, was the real story behind that Times piece a few months back.

McCain so buys his own image as a maverick "straight shooter" that he's totally unaware of his own poor ethical judgment. It's a shame, I think, insofar as he probably means well. Then again, so does Bush.

quizybuck: From the noted right-wing news site PBS: "The Senate Ethics Committee concluded that Glenn and McCain's involvement in the scheme was minimal and dropped the charges against them. In August 1991, the committee ruled that the other three senators had acted improperly in interfering with the Federal Home Loan Banking Board's investigation."

Link (new window)

I see a lot of traction for this story.

Wow, it's a good thing that the Senate Ethics Committee can be completely above everyday politics and partisanship.

MickCollins: And Jones is Obama's political "Godfather".

What's the actual claim here? That Obama associates with people who are corrupt? Or that Obama himself is corrupt? If the latter, it would seem to me that claims of guilt by association are far too flimsy to bolster the argument.

What's your actual point, then?

KrispyKringle: MickCollins: And Jones is Obama's political "Godfather".

What's the actual claim here? That Obama associates with people who are corrupt? Or that Obama himself is corrupt? If the latter, it would seem to me that claims of guilt by association are far too flimsy to bolster the argument.

What's your actual point, then?

Follow the line of the original posts. Someone posted that McCain will be able to use the fact that Obama is a "Chicago Democrat" against him. Someone else then claimed being a state rep had nothing to do with Chicago. I pointed out that, yea, it did. So McCain will, in fact, be able to tie Obama to the Chicago political machine and anyone who lives in this town knows the corruption is thicker than a Nebraska cop at a Cracker Barrel.

//Zomg, its a callback to a video thread.

MickCollins: Follow the line of the original posts. Someone posted that McCain will be able to use the fact that Obama is a "Chicago Democrat" against him. Someone else then claimed being a state rep had nothing to do with Chicago. I pointed out that, yea, it did. So McCain will, in fact, be able to tie Obama to the Chicago political machine and anyone who lives in this town knows the corruption is thicker than a Nebraska cop at a Cracker Barrel.

Ah. Fair enough. I thought you were making your own claim of corruption.

I have no doubt that McCain, as did Clinton, will attempt to use guilt by association. Wright, Ayers, et al. make that all too easy. The "Chicago Democrat" claim seems, in comparison, fairly dull (but there's probably some market it'll play in).

That Obama associates with people who are corrupt? Or that Obama himself is corrupt?

It's looking more and more like the latter, I'm afraid. The "really good deal" he got on his house (which he bought from a political fixer who's currently on trial), along with a number of other "incidents" that keep getting glossed over by the press, leads up to a pretty iffy past. If he had a really good resume, people might overlook it, but since his whole campaign is "vote for me, I'm cute and charming," he can't afford ANY corruption issues.

...and in response to the "thousand words" by Remove all Republicans above, you're really setting yourself up for a fall. The Democrats have already been leaning on the "Bush III" meme, and it's getting nowhere, except among lifelong Democrats (and not even all of them). You guys have been screaming about the Eeeeevil Republicans for decades, and while you really want to run on Bush's record, the Republicans get to run on Obama's lack of one (and his mounting "look at the morons I hired" one, and the "hey the Democrats voted for the war, too" one, et cetera...)

KrispyKringle: Ah. Fair enough. I thought you were making your own claim of corruption.

I have no doubt that McCain, as did Clinton, will attempt to use guilt by association. Wright, Ayers, et al. make that all too easy. The "Chicago Democrat" claim seems, in comparison, fairly dull (but there's probably some market it'll play in).

Also, for all the republican whining about democratic corruption in Chicago, they don't seem to make much headway. As a whole, national republicans are even worse, they just try to point out the speck of dust in the dem's eyes before pulling the ship's mast out of their own.

cirby: It's looking more and more like the latter, I'm afraid. The "really good deal" he got on his house (which he bought from a political fixer who's currently on trial), along with a number of other "incidents" that keep getting glossed over by the press, leads up to a pretty iffy past. If he had a really good resume, people might overlook it, but since his whole campaign is "vote for me, I'm cute and charming," he can't afford ANY corruption issues.

Seems to me you're stretching the truth a bit.

First, he didn't buy the house from Rezko. So you're actually completely mistaken on the details of the story.

Second, the "good deal" was just that--the house sold for under the initial asking price. I don't find that at all suspicious. It's called bargaining.

And then you do the whole "not to mention a ton of other things you aren't aware of." What other incidents? Name them or GTFO.

saintstryfe:

Also, for all the republican whining about democratic corruption in Chicago, they don't seem to make much headway. As a whole, national republicans are even worse, they just try to point out the speck of dust in the dem's eyes before pulling the ship's mast out of their own.

It isn't just Repubs in Chicago. Democrats complain about the corruption,too. The thing that makes me wonder if this city is insane is that they all complain about how awful the corruption is yet they elect the same assholes over and over.

cirby: The "really good deal" he got on his house (which he bought from a political fixer who's currently on trial)

IIRC it wasn't for his house. It was a stip of land adjoining his property. It it was financed through the company of they guy on trial. Not bought from him.

at least thats the way i remember it.

along with a number of other "incidents" that keep getting glossed over by the press

such as?

but since his whole campaign is "vote for me, I'm cute and charming," he can't afford ANY corruption issues.

aaaaand I see I wasted my time...

cirby: If he had a really good resume, people might overlook it, but since his whole campaign is "vote for me, I'm cute and charming," he can't afford ANY corruption issues.

Also, yeah. This sentence? Totally hilarious. Your thought process was clearly, "But the thread is about McCain's past corruption. What can I say that would excuse McCain but still indict Obama, yet not be hypocritical?"

It's a shame you see the world through such partisan glasses.

cirby: It's looking more and more like the latter, I'm afraid. The "really good deal" he got on his house...

That's really, really, really reaching, and you know it.

cirby: The Democrats have already been leaning on the "Bush III" meme, and it's getting nowhere, except among lifelong Democrats (and not even all of them).

So my dad, who voted for Bush twice and believes that McCain will be Bush round 3, is a "lifelong Democrat" in your book. Good to know.

MickCollins: KrispyKringle: MickCollins: And Jones is Obama's political "Godfather".

What's the actual claim here? That Obama associates with people who are corrupt? Or that Obama himself is corrupt? If the latter, it would seem to me that claims of guilt by association are far too flimsy to bolster the argument.

What's your actual point, then?

Follow the line of the original posts. Someone posted that McCain will be able to use the fact that Obama is a "Chicago Democrat" against him. Someone else then claimed being a state rep had nothing to do with Chicago. I pointed out that, yea, it did. So McCain will, in fact, be able to tie Obama to the Chicago political machine and anyone who lives in this town knows the corruption is thicker than a Nebraska cop at a Cracker Barrel.

//Zomg, its a callback to a video thread.

I don't think it'll work that well, given the fact that government transparency and ethics reform is are two of the strong points of Obama's campaign and some of his biggest legislative issues. The perception is the same for McCain, yet McCain has transgressions in the past (mainly the Keating Five incident) and a a number of stories about potentially shady dealings with lobbyists.

Honestly I don't understand why his campaign hasn't touted his commitment to transparency more, it seems like it would be a winning issue after eight years of Bush and Cheney stonewalling any attempts at oversight. Aside from his good judgment concerning Iraq from the very beginning, the thing that drew me the most to his candidacy are his ambitious plans to greatly increase transparency in all areas in the federal government, specifically through the use of the internet.

Check out his technology and ethics proposals. In my opinion he's the first major candidate to really understand the power of the internet and the role it can play in strengthening democracy.

cirby: That Obama associates with people who are corrupt? Or that Obama himself is corrupt?

It's looking more and more like the latter, I'm afraid. The "really good deal" he got on his house (which he bought from a political fixer who's currently on trial), along with a number of other "incidents" that keep getting glossed over by the press, leads up to a pretty iffy past. If he had a really good resume, people might overlook it, but since his whole campaign is "vote for me, I'm cute and charming," he can't afford ANY corruption issues.

...and in response to the "thousand words" by Remove all Republicans above, you're really setting yourself up for a fall. The Democrats have already been leaning on the "Bush III" meme, and it's getting nowhere, except among lifelong Democrats (and not even all of them). You guys have been screaming about the Eeeeevil Republicans for decades, and while you really want to run on Bush's record, the Republicans get to run on Obama's lack of one (and his mounting "look at the morons I hired" one, and the "hey the Democrats voted for the war, too" one, et cetera...)

Dude, it's perfectly okay to feel that Obama's policies are wrong or that, suubjectively, you feel that his experience isn't right or extensive enough. That's fine to debate. But when you have to resort to outright falsehoods, then you weaken your point and make people fail to appreciate your opinions as mature and considered.

Follow up on some of the stuff you assume to be true! Please!

Remove all Republicans: The entire history of the GOP has been lies and falsehoods to keep society back.


"Huh?"

MickCollins: Remove all Republicans: The entire history of the GOP has been lies and falsehoods to keep society back.


"Huh?"

The last good GOP President.

MickCollins: "Huh?"

but...uh...thats when republicans were really democrats and democrats were really republicans...even though they were named different...or something...

Beemer: The last good GOP President.

disagrees (new window)

Remove all Republicans: Remember that Andrew Johnson who gave up on the south and let segregation run free was also a Republican as well. It sure as hell wasn't the Republicans who were fixing the problems.

I wish you knew how foolish you look about 85% of the time.

Remove all Republicans: Imagine if we had a Jimmy Carter instead who worked to talk with them instead of trying to challenge them with guns everywhere. The amount of lives that wouldn't have been lost is just staggering to think about.

wow

Remove all Republicans: Rethinking that 85%, aren't you now?

its certainly gone up

I'm a bit torn on this. On the one hand, I don't want to see Obama go down into the political mudslinging that this will almost certainly degenerate into. On the other hand, I'm not quite sure what exactly will count as "old school" political mudslinging. His comments in the article (granted, most probably taken out of context) struck me as a bit backhanded.

However, after the bullshiat he's had to deal with from the media constantly stirring the pot, I'm not so inclined to think questioning McCain's flip-flopping and his role in the Keating 5 is in defiance of his support of "new politics". I'd like to think there's a bit of difference between being hammered on association with Wright, especially in wake of the response speech, than questioning why a tortured POW would flop on a ban on torture when a little pressure is applied.

Just my .02

Remove all Republicans: One thousand words, cirby:

Wow. Nicely done, sir.

Really?

cirby: Two words, O-man:

"Chicago Democrat."

They bring a knife, you bring arugula. That's the Obama way.

Remove all Republicans: Remember that Andrew Johnson who gave up on the south and let segregation run free was also a Republican as well. It sure as hell wasn't the Republicans who were fixing the problems.

Andrew Johnson was a Democrat...

log_jammin: Beemer: The last good GOP President.

disagrees (new window)

He's the reason why we have an Islamic Republic of Iran. (new window)

MickCollins: Remove all Republicans: The entire history of the GOP has been lies and falsehoods to keep society back.



"Huh?"

FTFY

I have been wondering about the suppression of this part of John McCain's past for awhile now. It seems when the press make a habit of calling someone "Maverick" repeatedly,it becomes more and more difficult to actually criticize him. I'm glad Obama hasn't forgotten.

/my observation

Beemer: The last good GOP President.

TR.

The entire history of the Right in America has been lies and falsehoods to hold society back.

Right in 1860=Democrats.