• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Rasmussen Reports: McCain Vs Obama Now Tied

SlingXShot

Senior member
Well it is interesting indeed that they are now 100% tied: http://rasmussenreports.com/pu...idential_tracking_poll

Is this just a stastical noise? I think not.

Past few weeks, Obama has been throwing things that people don't like to hear. For example, few days ago he said that people should speak Spanish, 83% disagree? Why people disagree? Because people are lazy and think that U.S is the dominant country - and we control the language (primary English). It is sad indeed. I have a friend from Swiz, he speaks 5 languages. And he is just an average person. Why does he speak so many? Because he lives in europe which sometimes is requires to travel to many countries.

Now the FISA issue, thats prob the main cause...

It will be interested to hear Obama's response.

I am actually an Obama supporters and want the polls to keep dropping (not too much of course) so he can actually clear up the issues he has with people. He should spend a week just going back on every issue and making clear points why he has chosen those paths. I think at least 50% people want that from Obama and he might get a lot of supporters back if he explains his reasoning. In my opinion, polls drop not because of one issue but a collection issues that keep repeating over and over and over again till people have enough of it and just lose support of the candidate.

So the question, will the polls keep dropping or stay tied?
 
I think you are missing the big issue.

For the longest time people looked at Obama and saw in him whatever they wanted to see. His campaign speeches were all about hope and change and people fell for it. At the same time the press was falling over itself to talk about how great Obama is and how wonderful his speaking ability was etc. This inflated Obama to the messiah status that us on the right have been mocking.

Now all of the things that made him look so great are gone. He is addressing issues specifically in a way he did not have to do during the primaries. And far more importantly the press is starting to question him and especially question his flip-flops. The media that was kissing his feet a few months ago is posting article after article about how Obama has changed etc etc.

You would have to really be foolish to not realize that the combination of these two things is reason behind Obama's drop in the poll. The press coverage being the big factor by far. Obama has had phenomenally good press coverage up until recently. Now that the media has gone from singing his praises to questioning him the rest of America is following suit.
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I think you are missing the big issue.

For the longest time people looked at Obama and saw in him whatever they wanted to see. His campaign speeches were all about hope and change and people fell for it. At the same time the press was falling over itself to talk about how great Obama is and how wonderful his speaking ability was etc. This inflated Obama to the messiah status that us on the right have been mocking.

Now all of the things that made him look so great are gone. He is addressing issues specifically in a way he did not have to do during the primaries. And far more importantly the press is starting to question him and especially question his flip-flops. The media that was kissing his feet a few months ago is posting article after article about how Obama has changed etc etc.

You would have to really be foolish to not realize that the combination of these two things is reason behind Obama's drop in the poll. The press coverage being the big factor by far. Obama has had phenomenally good press coverage up until recently. Now that the media has gone from singing his praises to questioning him the rest of America is following suit.

Except that many supporting Obama realize that, as well, McCain is basically another 4 years of Bush.

You better hope Barr doesn't make it into the national debates.
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I think you are missing the big issue.

For the longest time people looked at Obama and saw in him whatever they wanted to see. His campaign speeches were all about hope and change and people fell for it. At the same time the press was falling over itself to talk about how great Obama is and how wonderful his speaking ability was etc. This inflated Obama to the messiah status that us on the right have been mocking.

Now all of the things that made him look so great are gone. He is addressing issues specifically in a way he did not have to do during the primaries. And far more importantly the press is starting to question him and especially question his flip-flops. The media that was kissing his feet a few months ago is posting article after article about how Obama has changed etc etc.

You would have to really be foolish to not realize that the combination of these two things is reason behind Obama's drop in the poll. The press coverage being the big factor by far. Obama has had phenomenally good press coverage up until recently. Now that the media has gone from singing his praises to questioning him the rest of America is following suit.


I think you are 100% right. Media has been mostly positive about Obama during the primaries. And created this image that he is the best hope there is. And it is media's fault. I actually have looked back and compared his flipflops, 90% of what he said were never flip flops.

A. He never changed his position on Iraq, I read transcripts, he has been saying he will refine iraq policies during primaries. Why it came up now? Because media never picked it up, they thought he is a GOD.
B. He never lied about FISA. He was talking about opposing an older version of the FISA bill. Months later when it got revised, he said he will support. It is a totally different bill. People completely misinterepted him.
C. Public financing. Completely crap, when he answered that question about working with mccain on public financing, it was when he just started his campaign, he was receiving barely a dollar from donors, how would he known that he would receive 53 million dollars in Feb?
 
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I think you are missing the big issue.

For the longest time people looked at Obama and saw in him whatever they wanted to see. His campaign speeches were all about hope and change and people fell for it. At the same time the press was falling over itself to talk about how great Obama is and how wonderful his speaking ability was etc. This inflated Obama to the messiah status that us on the right have been mocking.

Now all of the things that made him look so great are gone. He is addressing issues specifically in a way he did not have to do during the primaries. And far more importantly the press is starting to question him and especially question his flip-flops. The media that was kissing his feet a few months ago is posting article after article about how Obama has changed etc etc.

You would have to really be foolish to not realize that the combination of these two things is reason behind Obama's drop in the poll. The press coverage being the big factor by far. Obama has had phenomenally good press coverage up until recently. Now that the media has gone from singing his praises to questioning him the rest of America is following suit.
Except that many supporting Obama realize that, as well, McCain is basically another 4 years of Bush.

You better hope Barr doesn't make it into the national debates.
Why do you guys pretend this is a factor?

Look at the daily polls
Every time Obama drops a point McCain picks up a point.

McCain has gone from 43-44 in June to 45-46 in July. Obama has gone from 48-49 to 46-47.
If what you are saying is true then we would have seen a drop in Obama's support without a raise in McCain's support, but is not happening. As of now the third party candidates are have NO effect on the polls. I doubt that most Americans even know these guys are running.
 
Originally posted by: SlingXShot
I think you are 100% right. Media has been mostly positive about Obama during the primaries. And created this image that he is the best hope there is. And it is media's fault. I actually have looked back and compared his flipflops, 90% of what he said were never flip flops.

A. He never changed his position on Iraq, I read transcripts, he has been saying he will refine iraq policies during primaries. Why it came up now? Because media never picked it up, they thought he is a GOD.
B. He never lied about FISA. He was talking about opposing an older version of the FISA bill. Months later when it got revised, he said he will support. It is a totally different bill. People completely misinterepted him.
C. Public financing. Completely crap, when he answered that question about working with mccain on public financing, it was when he just started his campaign, he was receiving barely a dollar from donors, how would he known that he would receive 53 million dollars in Feb?
How old are you again? Is this the first Presidential race you have lived through as an adult?

A. Obama PROMISED to get us out in 16 months. Any 'refinement' of his Iraq policy is a change from his promise to end the war, period.
B. He said he would filibuster FISA if it included immunity for the telcos and then he voted for it, huge flip-flop.
C. He said he would work with the Republican to make an agreement on public finance and then threw that promise away the second he realized he could raise more money. Of all his flip-flops this is the worst because it exposes him as a politicians that will do whatever is in HIS best interests instead of standing on principle.
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Why do you guys pretend this is a factor?

Look at the daily polls
Every time Obama drops a point McCain picks up a point.

McCain has gone from 43-44 in June to 45-46 in July. Obama has gone from 48-49 to 46-47.
If what you are saying is true then we would have seen a drop in Obama's support without a raise in McCain's support, but is not happening. As of now the third party candidates are have NO effect on the polls. I doubt that most Americans even know these guys are running.

It may not be a factor yet, but if Barr gets into the debates, it may. There is basically no exposure of any 3rd-party candidates at this point.
 
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Why do you guys pretend this is a factor?

Look at the daily polls
Every time Obama drops a point McCain picks up a point.

McCain has gone from 43-44 in June to 45-46 in July. Obama has gone from 48-49 to 46-47.
If what you are saying is true then we would have seen a drop in Obama's support without a raise in McCain's support, but is not happening. As of now the third party candidates are have NO effect on the polls. I doubt that most Americans even know these guys are running.

It may not be a factor yet, but if Barr gets into the debates, it may. There is basically no exposure of any 3rd-party candidates at this point.
Barr is not getting into any debates. Please don't spam us with Barr crap the way we were spammed with Ron Paul crap.
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: SlingXShot
I think you are 100% right. Media has been mostly positive about Obama during the primaries. And created this image that he is the best hope there is. And it is media's fault. I actually have looked back and compared his flipflops, 90% of what he said were never flip flops.

A. He never changed his position on Iraq, I read transcripts, he has been saying he will refine iraq policies during primaries. Why it came up now? Because media never picked it up, they thought he is a GOD.
B. He never lied about FISA. He was talking about opposing an older version of the FISA bill. Months later when it got revised, he said he will support. It is a totally different bill. People completely misinterepted him.
C. Public financing. Completely crap, when he answered that question about working with mccain on public financing, it was when he just started his campaign, he was receiving barely a dollar from donors, how would he known that he would receive 53 million dollars in Feb?
How old are you again? Is this the first Presidential race you have lived through as an adult?

A. Obama PROMISED to get us out in 16 months. Any 'refinement' of his Iraq policy is a change from his promise to end the war, period.
B. He said he would filibuster FISA if it included immunity for the telcos and then he voted for it, huge flip-flop.
C. He said he would work with the Republican to make an agreement on public finance and then threw that promise away the second he realized he could raise more money. Of all his flip-flops this is the worst because it exposes him as a politicians that will do whatever is in HIS best interests instead of standing on principle.

You are so wrong on iraq

At a Democratic debate in Hanover, N.H. on Sept. 26, 2007, the late Time Russert pressed Obama as to whether he would have all troops out by the end of his first term. "I think it's hard to project four years from now, and I think it would be irresponsible. We don't know what contingency will be out there," Obama said. "I will drastically reduce our presence there to the mission of protecting our embassy, protecting our civilians and making sure that we're carrying out counterterrorism activities there. I believe that we should have all our troops out by 2013, but I don't want to make promises not knowing what the situation's going to be three or four years out."

? At a Democratic debate in Cleveland on Feb. 26, 2008, Obama said, "As soon as I take office, I will call in the Joint Chiefs of Staff, we will initiate a phased withdrawal, we will be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in. We will give ample time for them to stand up, to negotiate the kinds of agreements that will arrive at the political accommodations that are needed."

? At a debate in Philadelphia on April 16, 2008, Obama said, "Now, I will always listen to our commanders on the ground with respect to tactics. Once I've given them a new mission, that we are going to proceed deliberately in an orderly fashion out of Iraq and we are going to have our combat troops out, we will not have permanent bases there, once I've provided that mission, if they come to me and want to adjust tactics, then I will certainly take their recommendations into consideration; but ultimately the buck stops with me as the commander in chief."

? On "Meet the Press" on May 4, 2008, Russert asked Obama what he would do if advisers thought "a quick withdrawal" from Iraq would result in genocide. Obama replied, "Of course, I would factor in the possibilities of genocide, and I factored it in when I said that I would begin a phased withdrawal. What we have talked about is a very deliberate and prudent approach to the withdrawal -- one to two brigades per month. At that pace, it would take about 16 months, assuming that George Bush is not going to lower troop levels before the next president takes office. We are talking about, potentially, two years away. At that point, we will have been in Iraq seven years. If we cannot get the Iraqis to stand up in seven years, we're not going to get them to stand up in 14 or 28 or 56 years."

http://www.politifact.com/trut...s-iraq-flip-flop-nope/
 
Originally posted by: SlingXShot


You are so wrong on iraq

He is wrong on alot of things 🙂

Its nice to see the impact on Obama's recent charge to the middle has only dropped him into essentially a tie. Essentially Obama has pissed some people off, but not enough to convert over to McCains side.

As bad as some people make things out to be I was certain Obama would be dropping out of the race this week! I guess things aren't all that bad.



 
Fuck the polls. They're just manipulating things to make them look close so the lemmings of the US will believe this is a legitimate race... between two candidates who hardly differ on real issues and talk 99% of the time about meaningless bullshit.

Obama.. McCain.. WHO CARES.

 
Wake me up in October. Then I'll look at the polls.

Right now polls are little more than porn for political junkies. **Oooo Oooo... My guy is ahead! FAP FAP FAP**
 
You are so wrong on Iraq.... :roll:
November 2005
link
Second, we need not a time-table, in the sense of a precise date for U.S. troop pull-outs, but a time-frame for such a phased withdrawal. More specifically, we need to be very clear about key issues, such as bases and the level of troops in Iraq. We need to say that there will be no bases in Iraq a decade from now and the United States armed forces cannot stand-up and support an Iraqi government in perpetuity - pushing the Iraqis to take ownership over the situation and placing pressure on various factions to reach the broad based political settlement that is so essential to defeating the insurgency.

From his Senate web site
June 2006
link
As one who strongly opposed the decision to go to war and who has met with servicemen and women injured in this conflict and seen the pain of the parents and loved ones of those who have died in Iraq, I would like nothing more than for our military involvement to end.

But I do not believe that setting a date certain for the total withdrawal of U.S. troops is the best approach to achieving, in a methodical and responsible way, the three basic goals that should drive our Iraq policy: that is, 1) stabilizing Iraq and giving the factions within Iraq the space they need to forge a political settlement; 2) containing and ultimately defeating the insurgency in Iraq; and 3) bringing our troops safely home.

What is needed is a blueprint for an expeditious yet responsible exit from Iraq. A hard and fast, arbitrary deadline for withdrawal offers our commanders in the field, and our diplomats in the region, insufficient flexibility to implement that strategy.
February 10 2007 in his speech announcing is plan to run for President
link
But all of this cannot come to pass until we bring an end to this war in Iraq. Most of you know that I opposed this war from the start. I thought it was a tragic mistake. Today we grieve for the families who have lost loved ones, the hearts that have been broken, and the young lives that could have been. America, it is time to start bringing our troops home. It's time to admit that no amount of American lives can resolve the political disagreement that lies at the heart of someone else's civil war. That's why I have a plan that will bring our combat troops home by March of 2008. Letting the Iraqis know that we will not be there forever is our last, best hope to pressure the Sunni and Shia to come to the table and find peace.
What happened to his opposition to a hard dead line??? 😕

September 2007 at a Democratic debate
link
Q: Gen. Petraeus and Pres. Bush indicated that in January 2009, there will be 100,000 troops in Iraq. What do you do?
A: I hope and will work diligently in the Senate to bring an end to this war before I take office. And it is very important at this stage, understanding how badly the president's strategy has failed, that we not vote for funding without some timetable for this war. If there are still large troop presences in when I take office, then
Q: Will you pledge that by January 2013, the end of your first term, there will be no US troops in Iraq?
A: I think it's hard to project four years from now, and I think it would be irresponsible. We don't know what contingency will be out there. I believe that we should have all our troops out by 2013, but I don't want to make promises,
not knowing what the situation's going to be three or four years out.
Now he is back to not making a promise to have our troops out of Iraq.

November 2007
link
As President, I will end the war in Iraq. We will have our troops home in sixteen months.
Now he is back to hard dead line, no nuanced "we have to do it right" just a hard fast "I will end the war" comment.

Iowa Caucus night
link
And I'll be a President who ends this war in Iraq and finally brings our troops home;
New Hampshire primary night
link
And when I am President, we will end this war in Iraq and bring our troops home;
Jan 28 response to the State of the Union speech
link
So the only way we're finally going to pressure the Iraqis to reconcile and take responsibility for their future is to immediately begin the responsible withdrawal of our combat brigades so that we can bring all of our combat troops home.
Now watch the swing that happens the second he has the nomination wrapped up.
link
We must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in - but start leaving we must. It's time for Iraqis to take responsibility for their future.
July 3, scroll down to the "original post" this is the famous two news conferences in the same day on the same issue screw up.
link
?I?ve always said that the pace of withdrawal would be dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain stability. That assessment has not changed,? he said. ?And when I go to Iraq and have a chance to talk to some of the commanders on the ground, I?m sure I?ll have more information and will continue to refine my policies.?
So no we are back to the nuanced and careful withdrawal. And the bold part is a lie as I have shown above where he talks about a 16 month time frame without any hint of wavering.

Since 2005 Obama has gone from no deadline, to a hard 16 month deadline. to a 'we must be careful how withdraw' policy with no deadline. No wonder everyone is confused.
The real interesting thing is how he changes his lines based on who he is talking to. At a campaign rally it is all "I will end the war" but in front of the media it is "the pace of withdrawal would be dictated by the safety and security of our troops."

I can't wait till his trip to Iraq when the real big flop happens.
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Why do you guys pretend this is a factor?

Look at the daily polls
Every time Obama drops a point McCain picks up a point.

McCain has gone from 43-44 in June to 45-46 in July. Obama has gone from 48-49 to 46-47.
If what you are saying is true then we would have seen a drop in Obama's support without a raise in McCain's support, but is not happening. As of now the third party candidates are have NO effect on the polls. I doubt that most Americans even know these guys are running.

It may not be a factor yet, but if Barr gets into the debates, it may. There is basically no exposure of any 3rd-party candidates at this point.
Barr is not getting into any debates. Please don't spam us with Barr crap the way we were spammed with Ron Paul crap.

:laugh:

Seriously; Bob Barr is as much of a non factor as Ron Paul, unless you're one of the 2k who actually showed up to the "revolution march" in DC to hear 9/11 truthers and conspiracies about stickers on mailboxes.
 
Good. I see him only marginally better than McCain now and frankly I'm finding it hard to see a lot of positives. His foreign policy may end up less beligerent but his socialized approaches are no good and he's shown he lacks the character to stick with principles he claimed to have. He's no longer my presidential messiah 🙂
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Why do you guys pretend this is a factor?

Look at the daily polls
Every time Obama drops a point McCain picks up a point.

McCain has gone from 43-44 in June to 45-46 in July. Obama has gone from 48-49 to 46-47.
If what you are saying is true then we would have seen a drop in Obama's support without a raise in McCain's support, but is not happening. As of now the third party candidates are have NO effect on the polls. I doubt that most Americans even know these guys are running.

It may not be a factor yet, but if Barr gets into the debates, it may. There is basically no exposure of any 3rd-party candidates at this point.
Barr is not getting into any debates. Please don't spam us with Barr crap the way we were spammed with Ron Paul crap.

Y'know what... right now he's the only guy in the race that I would even consider voting for. I'm so pissed that McCain won I can't even describe it. For the first time in my life I have no candidate to vote for.

So here ya go... You clain to be a conservative. So are you a conservative or a Republican party shill? How on earth can you back McCain? he was this close >< to switching parties a few years ago. (Yeah, he denies it... but the Dems didn't offer him enough) RINO RINO RINO

Fuck McCain. Go Barr!
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
July 3, scroll down to the "original post" this is the famous two news conferences in the same day on the same issue screw up.
link
We must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in - but start leaving we must. It's time for Iraqis to take responsibility for their future.

link

YOU ARE WRONG AGAIN

As soon as he wrapped up his primaries he said this:
At a Democratic debate in Cleveland on Feb. 26, 2008, Obama said, "As soon as I take office, I will call in the Joint Chiefs of Staff, we will initiate a phased withdrawal, we will be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in. We will give ample time for them to stand up, to negotiate the kinds of agreements that will arrive at the political accommodations that are needed."
- in Feb!!!

 
This is pretty much a case of picking the poll that tells you what you want to hear. If you go to pollingreport.com you can check out a wide range of polls, pretty much all of which show Obama leading McCain by about 4-5 points.
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: SlingXShot
...
How old are you again? Is this the first Presidential race you have lived through as an adult?

A. Obama PROMISED to get us out in 16 months. Any 'refinement' of his Iraq policy is a change from his promise to end the war, period.
B. He said he would filibuster FISA if it included immunity for the telcos and then he voted for it, huge flip-flop.
C. He said he would work with the Republican to make an agreement on public finance and then threw that promise away the second he realized he could raise more money. Of all his flip-flops this is the worst because it exposes him as a politicians that will do whatever is in HIS best interests instead of standing on principle.

A. Obama still has promised to get out with-in "16" months. He might take a brigade one month or 3 per month. It doesn't matter, nothing has changed.

B. He voted for that amendment to remove it, that didn't go through. He did however vote for it but there are other things in it that needed to pass - he says he'll clean up the mess later. I don't really see a problem with just retroactive immunity.

C. He only agreed to keep the public financing if McCain did the same, they'd both only have 86 million. McCain denied. So, Obama gets to use his 200 million dollar war chest. 🙂
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
You are so wrong on Iraq.... :roll:
November 2005
link
Second, we need not a time-table, in the sense of a precise date for U.S. troop pull-outs, but a time-frame for such a phased withdrawal. More specifically, we need to be very clear about key issues, such as bases and the level of troops in Iraq. We need to say that there will be no bases in Iraq a decade from now and the United States armed forces cannot stand-up and support an Iraqi government in perpetuity - pushing the Iraqis to take ownership over the situation and placing pressure on various factions to reach the broad based political settlement that is so essential to defeating the insurgency.

From his Senate web site
June 2006
link
As one who strongly opposed the decision to go to war and who has met with servicemen and women injured in this conflict and seen the pain of the parents and loved ones of those who have died in Iraq, I would like nothing more than for our military involvement to end.

But I do not believe that setting a date certain for the total withdrawal of U.S. troops is the best approach to achieving, in a methodical and responsible way, the three basic goals that should drive our Iraq policy: that is, 1) stabilizing Iraq and giving the factions within Iraq the space they need to forge a political settlement; 2) containing and ultimately defeating the insurgency in Iraq; and 3) bringing our troops safely home.

What is needed is a blueprint for an expeditious yet responsible exit from Iraq. A hard and fast, arbitrary deadline for withdrawal offers our commanders in the field, and our diplomats in the region, insufficient flexibility to implement that strategy.
February 10 2007 in his speech announcing is plan to run for President
link
But all of this cannot come to pass until we bring an end to this war in Iraq. Most of you know that I opposed this war from the start. I thought it was a tragic mistake. Today we grieve for the families who have lost loved ones, the hearts that have been broken, and the young lives that could have been. America, it is time to start bringing our troops home. It's time to admit that no amount of American lives can resolve the political disagreement that lies at the heart of someone else's civil war. That's why I have a plan that will bring our combat troops home by March of 2008. Letting the Iraqis know that we will not be there forever is our last, best hope to pressure the Sunni and Shia to come to the table and find peace.
What happened to his opposition to a hard dead line??? 😕

September 2007 at a Democratic debate
link
Q: Gen. Petraeus and Pres. Bush indicated that in January 2009, there will be 100,000 troops in Iraq. What do you do?
A: I hope and will work diligently in the Senate to bring an end to this war before I take office. And it is very important at this stage, understanding how badly the president's strategy has failed, that we not vote for funding without some timetable for this war. If there are still large troop presences in when I take office, then
Q: Will you pledge that by January 2013, the end of your first term, there will be no US troops in Iraq?
A: I think it's hard to project four years from now, and I think it would be irresponsible. We don't know what contingency will be out there. I believe that we should have all our troops out by 2013, but I don't want to make promises,
not knowing what the situation's going to be three or four years out.
Now he is back to not making a promise to have our troops out of Iraq.

November 2007
link
As President, I will end the war in Iraq. We will have our troops home in sixteen months.
Now he is back to hard dead line, no nuanced "we have to do it right" just a hard fast "I will end the war" comment.

Iowa Caucus night
link
And I'll be a President who ends this war in Iraq and finally brings our troops home;
New Hampshire primary night
link
And when I am President, we will end this war in Iraq and bring our troops home;
Jan 28 response to the State of the Union speech
link
So the only way we're finally going to pressure the Iraqis to reconcile and take responsibility for their future is to immediately begin the responsible withdrawal of our combat brigades so that we can bring all of our combat troops home.
Now watch the swing that happens the second he has the nomination wrapped up.
link
We must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in - but start leaving we must. It's time for Iraqis to take responsibility for their future.
July 3, scroll down to the "original post" this is the famous two news conferences in the same day on the same issue screw up.
link
?I?ve always said that the pace of withdrawal would be dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain stability. That assessment has not changed,? he said. ?And when I go to Iraq and have a chance to talk to some of the commanders on the ground, I?m sure I?ll have more information and will continue to refine my policies.?
So no we are back to the nuanced and careful withdrawal. And the bold part is a lie as I have shown above where he talks about a 16 month time frame without any hint of wavering.

Since 2005 Obama has gone from no deadline, to a hard 16 month deadline. to a 'we must be careful how withdraw' policy with no deadline. No wonder everyone is confused.
The real interesting thing is how he changes his lines based on who he is talking to. At a campaign rally it is all "I will end the war" but in front of the media it is "the pace of withdrawal would be dictated by the safety and security of our troops."

I can't wait till his trip to Iraq when the real big flop happens.

Heh. It's so funny to watch you work so hard and yet still prove yourself wrong. All you proved was that Obama can say the same thing 10 different ways. The key issue remains that Obama intends a withdrawal, and McCain intends 100 years. Your side's little disinformation campaign is interesting, but pathetically transparent, and will go against you after the convention. That's one reason why these summer polls are so meaningless. Hell, actually you're getting played...
 
Originally posted by: Tab
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: SlingXShot
...
How old are you again? Is this the first Presidential race you have lived through as an adult?

A. Obama PROMISED to get us out in 16 months. Any 'refinement' of his Iraq policy is a change from his promise to end the war, period.
B. He said he would filibuster FISA if it included immunity for the telcos and then he voted for it, huge flip-flop.
C. He said he would work with the Republican to make an agreement on public finance and then threw that promise away the second he realized he could raise more money. Of all his flip-flops this is the worst because it exposes him as a politicians that will do whatever is in HIS best interests instead of standing on principle.

A. Obama still has promised to get out with-in "16" months. He might take a brigade one month or 3 per month. It doesn't matter, nothing has changed.

B. He voted for that amendment to remove it, that didn't go through. He did however vote for it but there are other things in it that needed to pass - he says he'll clean up the mess later. I don't really see a problem with just retroactive immunity.

C. He only agreed to keep the public financing if McCain did the same, they'd both only have 86 million. McCain denied. So, Obama gets to use his 200 million dollar war chest. 🙂
A is unchanged. There was never a flip-flop, this is a disinformation campaign to get the less politically educated to believe that Obama's phased withdrawal is akin to McCain's stand of never leaving at all. An additional agenda here is to test the waters as to whether McCain should flip-flop over with his own phased withdrawal plan.

For B, the details tended to be highly complicated. I'm not happy about it, but I think Obama pushed for compromise when the amendment failed, and the NSA played hardball. Just my opinion.

On part C, they leave out McCain's flip-flop on this issue. That at first he was, then wasn't, then he was again after Obama's fundraising was unexpectedly so successful. As someone who is STRONGLY against the existence of the Presidential Election Fund as it is, I don't have a problem with it.
 
Originally posted by: Tab
-snip-
C. He only agreed to keep the public financing if McCain did the same, they'd both only have 86 million. McCain denied. So, Obama gets to use his 200 million dollar war chest. 🙂

Hey peeps. I'm pretty sure the primaries and the general election are two SEPERATE events under the FEC rules.

McCain DID accept FEC funds for the gen election, but opted out during the primary.

Obama's pledge about accepting FEC funds was only about the gen election. Obama also opted out during the primary.

Fern
 
Back
Top