McCain does not speak for McCain: his staff takes away his cell phone privlages

[e-brake]

Apperently McCain does not speak for the McCain campaign. His staff has taken away his cell phone, and has limited the amount of time that he can speak on the phone. They are doing this because he has a tendency to adopt the opinions and policies of whoever he last spoke to. This can really fuck things up when your campaign has spent the last week perfecting a position and sending out talking points to staff around the country to only have the candidate blurt out a different position to the media because of a short phone conversation with someone outside of the campaign.

http://topicplus.com/john-mccains-ce...been-curtailed

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/10/us...hp&oref=slogin

[PETA]

how odd.... sounds like Obama's campaign handlers telling reporters "Well. Mr., Obama didn't really mean what he just said" Thinking specifically about Obama's comments to Jewish groups about an undivided capital in Jerusalem when he's now completely backed off from

So, what we can say is that candidates often get off their own message - regardless of which one it is.

[I AM EL-NINO]

Another waste of internet space here.
How about posting up something that really is important and not some worthless attack.

[PETA]

because they're fun?



oh.... and because Kevin is an unpatriotic commie bastid

[HomoSexualPredator]

Originally Posted by xian

because they're fun?



oh.... and because Kevin is an unpatriotic commie bastid

*bangs head on table*

Why is it that republicans insist on believing they have a monopoly on patriotism?

[charlie brown]

Originally Posted by I AM EL-NINO

Another waste of internet space here.
How about posting up something that really is important and not some worthless attack.

why is this unimportant?

don't you care about your future president's ability to stand by what they say for longer than a week?

oh wait - you only care if they are a "lefty" nvm, carry on

[charlie brown]

Originally Posted by HomoQueer

*bangs head on table*

Why is it that republicans insist on believing they have a monopoly on patriotism?

because they forget that patriotism is patriotism to the constitution, not a political party

[PETA]

Originally Posted by HomoQueer

*bangs head on table*

Why is it that republicans insist on believing they have a monopoly on patriotism?

lol - they don't.

Clearly my comment was a joke. I in no way what-so-ever think either of those things about Kevin or of Democrats (nor of lefties or liberals or progressives in general either - maybe specific individuals but I can think of none). I almost never hear (I say almost never to give myself an out - not bacuse I'm aware of any examples) mainstream (not Alan Keyes type whackos) people on the right challenging the patriotism of dems, libs etc etc.... we challenge and question their opinions, judgments and conclusions. I think its a little bit of projection from the left (non-hawkisk types) where they are worried they will be perceived as unpatriotic. I think its terribly funny to pick on doves with that challenge but please take it as the joke it is intended as not as a malicious charge - ty

Originally Posted by matias

why is this unimportant?

don't you care about your future president's ability to stand by what they say for longer than a week?

oh wait - you only care if they are a "lefty" nvm, carry on

It took less than a day for Barak's people to say Barak didn't really mean what he said about One Jerusalem.

But that's ok isn't it. Only McCain needs to have clearly defined unchanging positions on anything. Obama gets to have vague shifting positions and tell two mutually exclusive things to two different groups on opposite ends of the issue... lol

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...060601590.html

Obama Backs Away From Comment on Divided Jerusalem

Facing criticism from Palestinians, Sen. Barack Obama acknowledged yesterday that the status of Jerusalem will need to be negotiated in future peace talks, amending a statement earlier in the week that the city "must remain undivided."

Obama's statement, made during a speech Wednesday to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a pro-Israel lobbying group, drew a swift rebuke from Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.

"This statement is totally rejected," Abbas told reporters in the West Bank city of Ramallah. "The whole world knows that holy Jerusalem was occupied in 1967, and we will not accept a Palestinian state without having Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian state."

The Bush administration's official position is that the status of Jerusalem must be decided by the parties. Before he left office, President Bill Clinton proposed a formula under which "Jerusalem should be an open and undivided city," including locating the Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem.

Obama quickly backtracked yesterday in an interview with CNN.

"Well, obviously, it's going to be up to the parties to negotiate a range of these issues. And Jerusalem will be part of those negotiations," Obama said when asked whether Palestinians had no future claim to the city.

Obama said "as a practical matter, it would be very difficult to execute" a division of the city. "And I think that it is smart for us to -- to work through a system in which everybody has access to the extraordinary religious sites in Old Jerusalem but that Israel has a legitimate claim on that city."

But Rep. Robert Wexler (D-Fla.) later said on behalf of the Obama campaign that Obama's comment to CNN should not be seen as backtracking or even an amendment. He said Obama was clarifying that he has long believed it is up to the parties involved to determine the status of Jerusalem

another example of how poorly equipped Obama is to deal with foreign policy

[HomoSexualPredator]

Originally Posted by xian

lol - they don't.

yes, they do:

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/zieve/060829

now I know you were kidding, it just aggravated a pet peeve of mine.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by HomoQueer

yes, they do:

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/zieve/060829

now I know you were kidding, it just aggravated a pet peeve of mine.

lol - Alan Keyes



yeah, we disowned him a long time ago

[david austin]

the construction of a daily important news headline

step one - *insert political person here*

step two - (please choose one of the following)

A- did something dumb
B- changed stance on a previously stated policy
C- made an inappropriate comment

step three - explain why this drivel matters to you... the avg american citizen

step four - sell the media

[PETA]

5. pass the blunt

[charlie brown]

knowing that having your staff apologize for something you said and having your staff ban you from using your own cell phone seem are both important to me. the latter just seems a lot more alarming

[PETA]

Originally Posted by matias

knowing that having your staff apologize for something you said and having your staff ban you from using your own cell phone seem are both important to me. the latter just seems a lot more alarming

mweh.... they both do it (screw up) and I think too often it gets taken too much out of context.

They'll make errors - they'll misspeak. They even get their own policies wrong. There is a lot of shit they have to try to rememeber - that's why they have lots of staff to focus on a myriad of different issues. Kevin just thinks this shit is funny (and, frankly, it is).

[charlie brown]

it really is more lols than anything else - but at the same time it's ""