In an election year in which the economy is the No. 1 issue on people's minds, it's really stupid to be caught not knowing how many houses you own. Jeez, McCain's blunder makes George H.W. Bush's 1992 recession-era failure to know the price of milk look pretty small on the Out Of Touch scale.
UPDATE: McCain spokesman Brian Rogers had a great comeback:
Does a guy who made more than $4 million last year, just got back from vacation on a private beach in Hawaii and bought his own million-dollar mansion with the help of a convicted felon really want to get into a debate about houses? Does a guy who worries about the price of arugula and thinks regular people 'cling' to guns and religion in the face of economic hardship really want to have a debate about who's in touch with regular Americans?
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
And I say that just because a question is serious doesn't mean the answer is serious or has to be serious.
Posted by: | August 21, 2008 11:02 PM
Dunno, I think a political campaign is akin to a job interview and I think serious answers should be expected.
I had quite enough of the folksy anecdotes during the Reagan years.
'Great comeback' indeed. Like Ronald Reagan's retort after Carter's malaise speech; 'who wants to vote for a man who wants you to turn down the heat and put on a sweater'?
Obama 'Vacationing in Hawaii'? Yes. Like McCain 'vacations' in Arizona? Hawaii may be a tony destination for many of us but Obama was born there.
~~~~
I'm all for debates and who supports who. But that quote you saluted is a classic GOP Rovian post. It's creepy 'end justifies the means' tawdry. In truth, I, who once supported Senator McCain actively…. until he was character assassinated by the man he hopes to succeed, being advised now by Karl Rove, by the man who slandered him...... John wasn't faking when he said he didn't know how many houses he had. Any more than he did not know that there no longer is a place call Czechoslovakia. Or what was that other one…. The border of Pakistan and Iraq?
I wish you who wish to have another GOP president based primarily on abortion, ……..which although I support addressing it will never be overturned according to more than a few Supreme Court scholars because it has been precedent law for 1/3 century…..had someone you could believe in the way I once believed in John McCain. When he was a senior citizen senator instead of an elderly presidential candidate floundering in the twilight of his once crisp mind as I watched happening to Reagan.
People who were horrified by President Bush voted for him twice based on abortion and it got us into disastrous ruin and no further along regarding Roe. At least with John McCain we won’t be totally ruined and ashamed; just scared and unnerved. With either candidate it’s a crap shoot ‘your guess is as good as mine’ year. But vote for the good guy who got gamey. I suppose that’s worth a judge or two.
Dozens of posts all nit-picking on a few inconsequential words and an insignificant issue. What foolishness.
A better question might be: Why are neither of these candidates (or their interviewers) talking about the very serious threat of radical Islamism which is not going to go away and which one of these men is going to have to face fairly soon?
In two weeks we will note the 7th anniversary of 9-11. We should also note the fact that there has been no attack, but several serious plots have been thwarted. Does anyone doubt that that there will be an attempt to test the new president? Are the candidates aware of the threat, do they take it seriously, what will they do?
Somewhat more important than how they invest their money.
We should also note the fact that there has been no attack, but several serious plots have been thwarted.
Ah yes. Serious attacks like dismantling bridges with screwdrivers.
Why don't you list some of these 'serious attacks' that got foiled? Because the ones I remember were all very stupid plans that would be thrown out for entrapment in any reasonable court because the government had to coax them along, and not a single one was supported by money or resources outside the US. (Which would appear be the only only logical reason to operate militarily in other countries.)
Oh, and incidentally, there have not been no terrorist attacks since 9/11. Or, to stop speaking in negatives, there has been one attack, or rather a set of them. If you cannot recall this set, and the government's complete inability to prosecute them, perhaps you are not a person who should be speaking on this topic.
Bush and McCain have erased Obama's stature gap. How is McCain going to say Obama lacks experience if Obama is being called to the White House to solve a (in my opinion nonexistent) "crisis?"
Bush and McCain just handled Obama a loaded gun. Watch Obama shoot Republicans with it, and claim that his "strong leadership" led to a "successful negotiation" which culminated in "rescuing America." Who gave Obama this weapon? Why George Bush and John McCain, of course. When the president calls you in a "crisis," Obama has a legitimate claim to stature.
-----------------------------------------
Jorj
http://mls.fastrealestate.net
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.