Comments for Ad Hawk: Bon Voyage, Barack! (McCain Airs First Negative Ad While Obama Is Away) »
Posted By ybdogsct 1 year, 5 months ago in Arts & EntertainmentMcCain aired the first real negative ad of the 2008 general-election. McCain accuses Obama of 3 offenses: he "never held Senate a hearing on Afghanistan"; he "hasn't been to Iraq in years"; and he "vot[ed] against troop funding." While the complaints sound damning when simplified, they crumble upon closer examination.
Read Full Story at blog.newsweek.com »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentShowing 64 of 65 Comments
-
100%
ybdogsct1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://mediamatters.org/items/200807180013
"In the new negative ad which will run in battleground states while Obama is abroad, McCain accuses Obama of 'voting against funding our troops,' but McCain himself 'voted against funding our troops' when he voted against legislation that would have provided funds for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and directed more than $1 billion to the Department of Veterans Affairs, as well as other legislation funding care for veterans." "Obama did vote against a 2007 war-funding bill because he registering an objection to legislation that 'lacked a timetable for troop withdrawal'--a position that arguably means he was more concerned about troop well-being, not less."
Reply-
Neutral
tiredofwhiners1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Arguably he voted against the funding and has presented himself (until recently) as having been against the war since the beginning. If you're against a war you don't fund it at all. He didn't get the timetable he wanted and so you use that to excuse his voting against it. Having a timetable is well known to be a signal to the enemy to wait until that time, and is always a big no-no in any war. Obama is scary to me if responsible for anything to do with dealing with enemies, and there are plenty of enemies of freedom out there. Nobody is against the welfare of the troops.
Reply-
Neutral
ybdogsct1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
TIRED:
"If you're against a war you don't fund it at all. He didn't get the timetable he wanted and so you use that to excuse his voting against it."
Using your own tortured logic, the converse should also be true. "If you're for war, then you always vote in favor of funding it." It's laughable how your double-standards would condemn Obama, while excusing McCain:
FROM THE ARTICLE:
"In the new negative ad which will run in battleground states while Obama is abroad, McCain accuses Obama of 'voting against funding our troops,' but McCain himself 'voted against funding our troops' when he voted against legislation that would have provided funds for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and directed more than $1 billion to the Department of Veterans Affairs, as well as other legislation funding care for veterans."
Spare me your hypocritical partisan double-standards.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
tiredofwhiners1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The ads are truthful, not negative. I have seen political ads, in Presidential and all other elections, since 1962. The Democrats win the dirty and negative ads contest hands down. I remember voting for the loser, Goldwater in 1964. They had ads showing atomic bombs going off!!! (WWIII) and portraying him as trigger happy! Look who we got, LBJ and Vietnam. In recent years the dirty ads by Dems have gotten worse. We will see who wins the neg ad contest this year. Think about this: What truly major conflict will arise in the future if Obama gets in and he just gives up on every threat that arises.
Reply-
Neutral
ybdogsct1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
TIRED:
"The Democrats win the dirty and negative ads contest hands down."
You obviously don't remember what happened to McCain in the South Carolina 2000 primary against Bush.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opin...
"Anonymous opponents used push polling to suggest that McCain's Bangladeshi born daughter was his own, illegitimate black child. Bob Jones University professor Richard Hand sent an e-mail to 'fellow South Carolinians' stating that McCain had 'chosen to sire children without marriage.'
http://www.bartcopnation.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=...
"Bush Supporters Called McCain 'The Fag Candidate.' In South Carolina, Bush supporters circulated church fliers that labeled McCain 'the fag candidate.'"
"Among the rumors circulated was that McCain was both gay and cheated on his wife, and that his wife Cindy was a drug addict."
Reply -
Neutral
ybdogsct1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Using the code word "temper," a group of Senate Republicans, and at least some outriders of the George W. Bush campaign, are spreading the word that John McCain is unstable."
"Some of George W. Bush's supporters have questioned Republican presidential candidate John McCain's fitness for the White House, suggesting that his five years as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam drove him insane at the time."
"Bush supporters in South Carolina made race-baiting phone calls saying that McCain had an illegitimate 'black child.' The McCains' daughter, Bridget, was adopted from Mother Teresa's orphanage in Bangladesh."
"Rove spread rumors against McCain, such as 'suggestions that McCain had committed treason while a prisoner of war, and had fathered a child by a black prostitute'"
"Sampleyâ;¦ accused McCain of being a weak-minded coward who had escaped death by collaborating with the enemy."
Reply
-
-
SwampFox-82ndComment removed: Retracted by user
-
Neutral
ybdogsct1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/07...
McCain also accuses Obama of Sen. Barack Obama 'never holding a single Senate hearing on Afghanistan.'
But "Sen. John McCain has attended even fewer Afghanistan-related Senate hearings over the past 2 years than Obama.
Meanwhile, Obama attended the full Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Afghanistan in March 2007. But McCain was a no-show. Since 2006, the Senate Armed Services Committee has held 6 hearings to oversee U.S. troops in Afghanistan. McCain, the top Republican on the Armed Service Committee, missed them all.
The findings are surprising given the fact that the McCain campaign loudly criticized Obama for failing to schedule any hearings on Afghanistan in the last year and a half.
'It is time for us to hold a hearing on the
Afghanistan mission,' Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) a McCain surrogate who most recently attacked Obama over Afghanistan, also didn't attend any hearings on Afghanistan."
Reply -
Neutral
ybdogsct1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/...
"Finally, McCain says Obama hasn't visited Iraq since 2006. He's right, but congressional travel doesn't always offer the most accurate (or revealing) view of a war zone. Take McCain's April 1, 2007 trip to Baghdad. At the time, McCain claimed that his stroll through an open-air market proved that people could now "walk freely" through the city. But it was later reported that the candidate wore a flak jacket and received protection from 100 soldiers, 3 Blackhawk helicopters and 4 Apache gunships; snipers returned the next day and murdered a few Shiite merchants. Second, Obama is already planning do this summer what McCain has said he should do--that is, visit Iraq.
McCain is trying to frame Obama as a know-nothing foreign-policy novice maneuvering for maximum political gain. But by choosing to focus 'Troop Funding' on matters of symbolism rather than substance, he doesn't really make it."
Reply-
100%
Teech1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Oh, John, poor John. A mind is a terrible thing to lose. It happens with senility.
A Navy man NEVER forgets - never throw the slop bucket over the windward side of the ship.
Ooooops, John, you did it again. Keep the negative ads coming, you drooling, old fool. Have you got your Swift Boat spot ready? It worked for your mentor, Dumbya, and maybe it will work for you.
Reply-
Neutral
tiredofwhiners1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Teech - I guess your kind of talk is OK so here we go. You drooling, foaming at the mouth, senile old wild eyed liberal hack. I thought the whole idea of this thread was about NOT negative campaigning. You would make a great political ad writer for Obama.
Reply-
Neutral
ybdogsct1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
TIRED:
"I thought the whole idea of this thread was about NOT negative campaigning."
Actually, the whole idea of this thread is how McCain's accusations in his first negative ad are misleading, especially when comparing Obama's record to McCain's.
Better read it again.
Reply -
-
-
SwampFox-82ndComment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
-
100%
quackpot1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Since the pro-McCain vote is vanishingly small, McCain's only hope is to rally the anti-Obama forces.
I have a feeling that the election will not be about which candidate will make an excellent President, but rather which candidate is least associated with Bush's disaster.
Reply -
-
Global_WarmerComment removed: Abusive7 Replies
-
-
100%
CHAM1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Lets see they complain about Obama not visiting, they complain about Obama visiting, they complain about Obama not attending sessions they themselves don't attend.
Ghee Whiz? I'll bet the thing they intend to complain about the most is that Obama is breathing ( their air of course).
I know of the corruption of McCain
I know McCain is the re-incarnation of Bush
I know America doesn't need four more years of the last eight.
Is there something else I need to know, to know who not to vote for?
I will not vote for McCain.
Promise!
Reply-
SwampFox-82ndComment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
100%
LumFan1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
And if Obama had taken as many trips to Iraq as McCain had? Then the ad would have berated Obama for wasting tax dollars for the extra security that would be necessary for someone of his stature. And if his subcommittee had held a number of hearings? Once again, wasting taxpayer dollars on nonsense.
McCain is rolling in hypocrisy.
Reply -
-
PretkoComment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
-
Neutral
tiredofwhiners1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Hold tight to your beliefs. If the ad is negative, studies have shown that they work in every campaign. Look to Obama to bring out plenty of negative ads. I thought the ad I saw a while ago was the most obviously negative of all, where a woman with a baby is asking if McCain wants her baby for the war (i.e. when he gets old enough). She says you can't have him. First of all the military is voluntary and secondly in 18 years it's likely terrorism will be defeated unless the likes of Obama gets in. Then we will have rampant terrorism and challenges to freedom. Either fight it or die in the future (your children and grandchildren).
Reply-
Neutral
ybdogsct1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
TIRED:
"Hold tight to your beliefs. If the ad is negative, studies have shown that they work in every campaign."
Studies have also shown that this campaign has been anomalous, in that negative ads against Obama seem to have BACKFIRED against their accusers (a la Hillary & Bill Clinton).
http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/12/ob...
"Going negative could backfire on Clinton"
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
SwampFox-82ndComment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
Neutral
Gransater1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Personaly I'm tired of this whole process. Not only has it been going on long enough, but it has reduced one of the most important decisions a citizen can make in this great country to the level of deciding what soap to buy.
When a candidate finally reaches the W.H. his/hers reputation has been shot so full of holes that the due respect inherent for position is just about vanished. Its to a degree dividing the country domestically, and on the international arena, rather than showing us as the open and united society we really are, we are projecting an image of fragmentation and discord.
This process also has a tendency of favoring individuals with a thick skin, good talkers and self centered qualities. Not that these are bad for the position, but other better qualified individuals with other attributes are falling by the wayside, or not even trying. Our presidency should not be for sale to the person with the most soundbites.
Its time to find alternative means of selection.
Reply -
100%
ybdogsct1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/07...
"'Obama is chairman of the Subcommittee on European Affairs. Under my chairmanship the Foreign Relations Committee has addressed most Afghanistan issues at the Full Committee level,' JosephBiden wrote. 'I believe that this is the best way of ensuring the most comprehensive examination of the complex issues involved, and of ensuring the highest-level Administration participation. We have held 3 Full Committee hearings in the last 22 months. At my request, Senator Obama chaired the confirmation hearing for our next ambassador to NATO, which he focused on NATO's mission in Afghanistan.'"
Reply -
100%
ybdogsct1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/07...
"'Obama has displayed great leadership on this issue: he called nearly a year ago for the deployment of at least 2 additional combat brigades to Afghanistan - it has since become the accepted position of a wide range of U.S. military officials, including the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.'
The issue of how many hearings have been held will become a prickly one if Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) a McCain surrogate, pursues it. Sen. McCain has skipped nearly every Armed Services Committee Hearing even though he is the ranking member. And Sen. DeMint skipped the one hearing Obama did chair to consider some executive nominations."
Reply -
100%
tchef1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You are the man ybdogsct!! Keep hitting them with the facts. The best thing we can do is to constantly remind the Republicans who put this country in the position it is in.
The Republicans had total control for 6 years and look what they have done. Ruined just about everything that they have touched.
Reply-
Neutral
tiredofwhiners1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Democrats records: Wilson - WWI, Roosevelt - 8 years of the Great Depression, then WWII (100's of thousands of American troops died), Truman - Dropping nukes on Japan, the Korean War, JFK and LBJ - the Vietnam War, the disastrous "Great Society", Carter - gas shortages, high inflation, double digit interest rates, Americans held hostage in Iran for 444 days, Clinton - Forced by Republican congress to cut spending, scandals, nothing done about Islamo-fascist terrorism, Obama - ???
Reply-
100%
ybdogsct1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
TIRED:
"Democrats records: Wilson - WWI, Roosevelt - 8 years of the Great Depression, then WWII (100's of thousands of American troops died)"
Actually, Roosevelt is CONSISTENTLY considered to be one of our greatest presidents, and Bush's presidency is often considered to be a failure.
http://www.microsoftencarta.org/encnet/features...
"Three presidents consistently top the charts (and the bottom-crawlers remain constant too). Again and again, scholars have reached consensus on Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt as the greatest presidents."
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2008/04/hbc-9000...
History News Network's poll of 109 historians found that 61% of them rank Bush as 'worst ever' among U.S. presidents. 96% place the Bush presidency in the bottom tier of American presidencies. 98% label his presidency a 'failure.'"
Reply -
100%
tchef1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This country was in much better shape when Clinton left it. If it weren't for his despicable personal conduct he would number among one of the better presidents in history. He worked with the Republican congress and balanced the budget. Look what Bush has done. Started a war based on lies, ruined the economy , allowed the person responsible for the worst attack on US soil to remain free while he turned his attention to another war.
Reply
-
-
SwampFox-82ndComment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
-
SwampFox-82ndComment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
-
SwampFox-82ndComment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
-
100%
ybdogsct1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
TIRED:
"This article is in itself a negative ad against McCain"
Wrong again.
1) It's a neutral correction, not a negative one.
http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/...
2) It's NOT an "advertisement," like the one McCain produced, paid for, and released while Obama was overseas.
Reply
-
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.