March 28, 2024, 06:00:32 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: NEW CHILD BOARD CREATED IN THE POLITICAL SECTION FOR THE 2016 ELECTION
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: McCain Chief Adviser: Another Attack on U.S. Would Be "Big Advantage" For McCain  (Read 3857 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
caesu
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 2001



« on: June 23, 2008, 04:45:30 PM »

Quote
Black concedes with startling candor after we raise the issue, another terrorist attack on U.S. soil. "Certainly it would be a big advantage to him," says Black.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/20/magazines/fortune/Evolution_McCain_Whitford.fortune/

sounds similar to the fear mongering we have seen during the Bush years.
this shows how desperate the McCain campaign is gotten.

the guild by association smear attacks against Obama don't seem to be working.

Quote
Campaigning in California, McCain shook his head when asked about Black’s comments.

“I cannot imagine why he would say it,” he said at a press conference. “It’s not true. I’ve worked tirelessly since 9/11 to prevent another attack on the United States of America. My record is very clear.”

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/23/mccain-criticizes-adviser%e2%80%99s-terrorism-comments/#more-8088

but now i can ask: why did he choose Charlie Black as chief adviser in the first place?
that would be very bad judgement then.
Logged

Tylergal
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9535



« Reply #1 on: June 23, 2008, 06:06:45 PM »

Unless you heard John McCain say this, it means nothing more than you wasting your time typing it.
Logged

There is always one more imbecile than you counted on
caesu
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 2001



« Reply #2 on: June 23, 2008, 06:12:38 PM »

Unless you heard John McCain say this, it means nothing more than you wasting your time typing it.

do you have the guts now to use the same standards for Obama?

if you do, you have been wasting a lot of time while you were copy-pasting all the rumors and smears.
Logged

WhiskeyGirl
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7754



« Reply #3 on: June 23, 2008, 06:50:34 PM »

Snips from the article referenced above...

Quote
Will that appeal to disaffected Clinton supporters? Conceivably. So might the populist themes we heard him sound repeatedly on the campaign trail. McCain wants greater "transparency and accountability" in government and markets. Moreover, he does not dispute that "the gap between executives and the workers has grown," and he states flatly, "That trend should not continue." One could argue that raising taxes on the wealthy would slow that trend; McCain is definitely not willing to go there. However, he does support so-called say-for-pay legislation, meaning he would give shareholders "advisory," if not binding, input on CEO pay. "I think what the corporate world has got to understand is there's anger out there with the American people," he told Fortune. "And [corporations] have to act to restore their reputation, just as we in public office have to act to restore ours. Our approval ratings are basically at the same incredibly low level."


Quote
Perhaps no issue has tested McCain over the years more than taxes. Four years ago, before he launched his second campaign for President, McCain was the keynote Republican speaker at a bipartisan conference on the budget titled "Restoring Fiscal Sanity - While We Still Can." The event was sponsored by a half-dozen think tanks representing all points on the political spectrum. "I'm a proud Republican," McCain said then, by way of introduction. "I'm a Barry Goldwater Republican. I revere Ronald Reagan and his party of limited government. Sadly, that party is no longer." He went on to sharply criticize colleagues on both sides of the aisle for runaway "pork-barrel spending" and "expanding entitlements," but he didn't quit there. He also talked about taxes. "And why do we have to have tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans when the gap between the wealthiest Americans and the poorest Americans is growing?" he wondered. Later he added, "We're at war. Tell me one time in the history of this country when this nation was at war when we've enacted tax cuts, especially for the wealthiest."


There is a chart at the site show the McCain/Obama impact on taxes. 

Up?  Down?

Quote
"My principles and my practice and my voting record are very clear," McCain told Fortune near the end of our interview, and as he said so, he sat forward in his seat and looked us in the eye. "Not only from 2000 but 1998 and 1992 and 1986. And you know, it's kind of a favorite tactical ploy now that opponents use, of saying the person has changed. Look, none of my principles or values have changed. Have I changed position on some specific issues because of changed circumstances? I would hope so! I would hope so!" That sound like straight talk to you? He sure hopes so.

Editor's note: This article has been corrected. The original stated that McCain planned to double the child-care tax credit. In fact he intends to expand the tax exemption for kids. Fortune regrets the error.

First Published: June 23, 2008: 8:00 AM EDT

http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/20/magazines/fortune/Evolution_McCain_Whitford.fortune/
Logged

All my posts are just my humble opinions.  Please take with a grain of salt.  Smile

It doesn't do any good to hate anyone,
they'll end up in your family anyway...
caesu
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 2001



« Reply #4 on: June 23, 2008, 08:06:55 PM »

Quote
McCain adviser apologizes for September 11 comment

Mon Jun 23, 2008 6:38pm EDT

By Steve Holland

FRESNO, California (Reuters) - A top adviser to Republican presidential candidate John McCain apologized on Monday after he was quoted as saying a September 11-type attack before the November election would benefit McCain.

The campaign of Democrat Barack Obama condemned the remark by McCain political adviser Charlie Black, calling it a "complete disgrace."

"I deeply regret the comments, they were inappropriate," Black said in a statement after McCain said that if Black had made such a comment, "I strenuously disagree" with it.

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN2327749220080623?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=10112

he apologized for his comments.
but it gives a look inside the McCain campaign.

a bit like Hillary's comments about the RFK assassination.
it shows how desperate her campaign was at that time and how desperate the McCain campaign must be now.

i disagree however with the sick idea of McCain's top adviser that a terror attack would be an advantage for McCain.
the GOP praises Bush for preventing a 2nd attack since 9/11.
in that case that argument will be disproved.
Logged

Tylergal
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9535



« Reply #5 on: June 23, 2008, 11:17:29 PM »

What argument will be disproved?  Are you saying we have had several attacks since 911?  Prognosticators over here and across the pond were telling us to expect everyday occurrences of these attacks from radical Islam that makes stiff upper-lipped Brits quaver in the middle of the night?  Nah, we have had no attacks, although another could come at anytime.  You know Obama is scheming all the way. 

While Bush was in Europe recently, those in the halls of European power were correcting the bilge spewed by the meaningless proletariat, with nothing but praise for Bush not only protecting the USA but helping to defend the Europeans. 

How quickly some forgot what horror could have come their way without the brilliant decisions and hard work of Americans.  Oh, the Euro transgenders and metrosexuals are just too delicate to fight their own battles and must depend on the cowboys. 

Alas, the cowboy is moving on and if the metrosexual is elected, someone needs to load up on hormones and steroids, before the Muslims reign supreme in Europeland.
Logged

There is always one more imbecile than you counted on
caesu
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 2001



« Reply #6 on: June 24, 2008, 12:27:58 AM »

What argument will be disproved?  Are you saying we have had several attacks since 911?  Prognosticators over here and across the pond were telling us to expect everyday occurrences of these attacks from radical Islam that makes stiff upper-lipped Brits quaver in the middle of the night?  Nah, we have had no attacks, although another could come at anytime.  You know Obama is scheming all the way. 

While Bush was in Europe recently, those in the halls of European power were correcting the bilge spewed by the meaningless proletariat, with nothing but praise for Bush not only protecting the USA but helping to defend the Europeans. 

How quickly some forgot what horror could have come their way without the brilliant decisions and hard work of Americans.  Oh, the Euro transgenders and metrosexuals are just too delicate to fight their own battles and must depend on the cowboys. 

Alas, the cowboy is moving on and if the metrosexual is elected, someone needs to load up on hormones and steroids, before the Muslims reign supreme in Europeland.

the argument that Bush prevented a 2nd attack is disproved IF there is a 2nd attack.

and i don't know were you got the impression from that Bush got 'nothing but praise' on his visit to Europe.
this visit was just a sideshow to the US election. Europe can't wait for january 2009.
usually lame duck presidents, especially the one who made themselves irrelevant go on a farewell tour and the hosts are polite and don't dwell on differences.

and if you don't think Bush is irrelevant now. just follow what's happening around israel right now.
remember that 'appeasement speech' Bush gave in the Knesset.
now israel is in talks syria about a peace deal, hezbollah and hamas about prisoners exchanges.
and a cease fire was negotiated with hamas with the help of egypt.
and earlier in qatar hezbollah struck a deal with the siniora government to become a legitimate militia.
qatar and egypt are both long time US allies.
for the last 30 years anything that happens regarding negotiations between israel and other countries need the US stamp of approval.
now, after the total failure of the Bush administration regarding the middle-east these countries are sidelining the US and are making their own deals.

so those 'brilliant decisions', you talk about... you've got me laughing again.

but try to respond on-topic for a change.

what do you think of the horrific comments Charley Black, McCain's chief adviser, made about another 9/11-like attack being an advantage for McCain???

(he apologized for those comments - didn't deny them)

it reminds me of all those terror alert-level raisings before the 2004 elections, coinciding with fear mongering speeches by Bush and in particular Cheney.

don't you think that his misjudgement in getting this man as a top-adviser makes McCain unfit for the Presidency??

imagine if someone like Charley Black would get the National Security Advisor post for example.

and should McCain fire him now?
Logged

Tylergal
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9535



« Reply #7 on: June 24, 2008, 12:41:37 AM »

Oh, I know ye hunters-and-peckers of the proletariat are awaiting the arrival of the messiah so that he can heal of your sores and line your pockets.  If you noticed, I did not mention the pensioners, but I was speaking of the leaders of Europe, who widely praised the president for keeping the world safe, but then how would you know, you are too busy with the Kos kids and not able to read what the papers of London are putting out.  Incidentally, I don't copy from the New Republic, what I bring here is from newspapers, whose names I put at the bottom of them. 

Alas, you and I will never know what it is to sit in the oval office and hopefully, neither will Obama.

Logged

There is always one more imbecile than you counted on
caesu
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 2001



« Reply #8 on: June 24, 2008, 12:48:49 AM »

Oh, I know ye hunters-and-peckers of the proletariat are awaiting the arrival of the messiah so that he can heal of your sores and line your pockets.  If you noticed, I did not mention the pensioners, but I was speaking of the leaders of Europe, who widely praised the president for keeping the world safe, but then how would you know, you are too busy with the Kos kids and not able to read what the papers of London are putting out.  Incidentally, I don't copy from the New Republic, what I bring here is from newspapers, whose names I put at the bottom of them. 

Alas, you and I will never know what it is to sit in the oval office and hopefully, neither will Obama.



it is not NewRepublic, but FreeRepublic.
every copy-pasting of you appeared also on that blog.

and European leaders did not "praise him for keeping the world safe".
you made that up. or Bush did.

and again, no on-topic response from you as usual.
Logged

crazybabyborg
Guest
« Reply #9 on: June 24, 2008, 09:27:04 AM »

I'm missing something here. All polls indicate that under a terrorist's attack, Americans would have more confidence in  McCain to handle the situation than Obama. Given those results, the statement that a terrorist's attack would be an advantage to McCain's election is simply an observation of fact. Voters would re-prioritize their criteria for making a choice between them.

To me, the point to ponder is what that tells us about the choices we are making. Personally, I think the prospect of the historical significance of a black man in the White House pales when confronted with our safety while radical islam flies planes into our government buildings and murders thousands of Americans.........black and white alike.......

That's not conjecture; it happened on 9/11, been prevented from happening since then, and the vows from radical terrorists for it to happen again continue. Terrorism is a totally valid issue to keep in mind when choosing a candidate, and the fact that most Americans would feel safer with McCain at the helm is, in fact, an advantage to him in his quest to win the White House.
Logged
crazybabyborg
Guest
« Reply #10 on: June 24, 2008, 06:56:10 PM »

Hillary agreed that the threat of terrorism should weigh in a voters decision for who should serve as our next president:

Clinton heightens terrorism rhetoric Posted by Marcella Bombardieri, political reporter January 7, 2008 02:11 PM
DOVER, N.H. – Facing the prospect of defeat in tomorrow’s primary, Hillary Clinton just made her strongest suggestion yet that the next president may face a terrorist attack – and that she would be the best person to handle it.

She pointed out that the day after Gordon Brown took office as the British prime minister, there was a failed attempt at a double bombing in London and Glasgow.

“I don’t think it was by accident that Al Qaeda decided to test the new prime minister,” she said. “They watch our elections as closely as we do, maybe more closely than some of our fellows citizens do…. Let’s not forget you’re hiring a president not just to do what a candidate says during the election, you want a president to be there when the chips are down.”

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/01/clinton_heighte.html

************************************************************
During her campaign, she also stated that a terrorism attack during the campaign would help the GOP:
Clinton: Terrorist attack would help GOPStory Highlights
Sen. Clinton said a terrorist attack would help the Republican candidates


By Alexander Mooney
CNN Washington Bureau

     
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- She says she is the Democrat best equipped to fight terrorists, but White House hopeful Sen. Hillary Clinton told New Hampshire voters Thursday that another attack on the United States would likely help Republican candidates at the polls.


Sen. Hillary Clinton said the Republicans would benefit politically if a terrorist attack occurred before the '08 vote.

 "It's a horrible prospect to ask yourself, 'What if? What if?' " Clinton, a New York Democrat, told a house party in Concord, according to the New York Post and The Associated Press and confirmed by her campaign.

"But, if certain things happen between now and the election, particularly with respect to terrorism, that will automatically give the Republicans an advantage again, no matter how badly they have mishandled it, no matter how much more dangerous they have made the world."

Clinton added that if such a scenario occurred, she is the best Democratic presidential candidate "to deal with that."

Clinton was in the crucial early voting state Thursday to unveil her health care plan.

A Clinton spokesman, Isaac Baker, told CNN "Sen. Clinton was making clear that she has the strength and experience to keep the country safe."

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/24/clinton.terrorism/index.html

So why the stink over this statement? Is it because a republican said it?

Logged
caesu
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 2001



« Reply #11 on: June 24, 2008, 07:42:14 PM »

because it is the GOP, not the Dems who 'supposedly' are having an advantage if a 2nd terror attack would slip through?

i think it is bad taste of both McCain's chief adviser and Hillary to mention this publicly.
same goes for the RFK assassination comment by Hillary. she got a lot of stink over that.

just keep such horrific thoughts for yourself i would suggest to them.
it is also like an open invitation for terrorist to influence the election, like they did with Madrid bombings.

political assassinations, 9/11 shouldn't be used for political gains.
in the 2004 elections this was used extensively by raising the terror level - based on flimsy intelligence, coinciding with fear monger speeches by Cheney.

McCain should fire him IMO if he doesn't want to leave an impression that his campaign is based on scare tactics.
Logged

crazybabyborg
Guest
« Reply #12 on: June 25, 2008, 11:32:25 AM »

I don't know how we can have a legitimate election season without a thorough examination of the relevant issues, and the threat of a terrorist attack is a real issue. Any conscientious voter should evaluate each candidate's ability to respond as well as their proposed method of prevention. That's impossible without airing out the topic. Keeping it to themselves doesn't give the voter that opportunity.

Again, Hillary, McCain's chief adviser, and the American Public all have more trust in McCain to deal with and respond to terrorists. That's not opinion, but fact (see quotes and polls). Focusing on that fact, digging into why that fact exists, is not using fear tactics. The differences between Obama and McCain on the issue of terrorism simply helps clarify what the voter has to choose from. Obama has more favorable numbers on health care............do you think that his campaign doesn't point that out by raising the issue?

Surely you aren't suggesting that we should put such a threat to our citizens out of the discussion! We lost that luxury on September 11, 2001. We are, in fact, embarking on a new Presidential term and it does, in fact, present a new opportunity for terrorist groups to test the waters. Until you have seen your country, in real time, being made victim to terrorism directed at thousands of innocents, don't casually dismiss it as fear mongering. There's nothing casual about it. We deal with gas and food prices everyday, and BECAUSE of the effectiveness of our terrorist attack preventive measures, those challenges have a priority. If anti-terrorist measures were to change, and if the terrorist's perception of America's sure response were altered to the point that another attack occurred, you can bet the farm that our priorities would turn on a dime.

Do you recall Carter's Administration and how stark the contrast was when Reagan took office? We went from crashed helicopters in the desert, hostages in Iran, and plane hijackings to restoration of respect and strength so fast that you could get whiplash! A change of Administration is a HUGE factor to our peace and security. The implications and ripples are felt both at home and throughout the world. The speak softly and carry a big stick philosophy is just fine after someone is in office, but before we put anyone in that place we need to hear loud and clear how big a stick it is and how they intend to carry it.
Logged
caesu
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 2001



« Reply #13 on: June 25, 2008, 12:02:24 PM »

of course terrorism is an issue for the political debates.
it is, and it will be.

but saying "another terrorist attack on U.S soil would be a big advantage for the McCain campaign" is totally tasteless.
McCain agrees with me on that one: "I cannot imagine why he would say it".

Charlie Black apologized, didn't deny saying it.

bad judgement of McCain to get this man as chief adviser.
he should get rid of him.

he might say more things that McCain can't imagine he would say.
Logged

crazybabyborg
Guest
« Reply #14 on: June 25, 2008, 06:16:49 PM »

Charlie Black would have served McCain far better by outlining why the country would rather look to McCain in a terrorism crisis, than Obama, rather than just pointing out that an attack would boost McCain's campaign. That point I certainly concede. Frankly, I'm puzzled myself as to why McCain reacted by saying he didn't understand why Black said it, other than the far fetched overture of "wishing" for an attack for the sake of the campaign. I do believe it was ill thought out and  a "cut to the chase" statement. It's hard to imagine that anyone hearing the remark couldn't figure out the point he was actually making. I believe McCain would have been more effective by just saying that Black misspoke the clearly expressed trust of where the American people would like to see their leadership under such circumstances, and open a discussion reminding voters of the policies and persona that inspire that trust.

If the policies of a candidate are such that inspire trust in the face of 9/11, then there should be political gain from it. That sort of political gain is what our political process is all about as we aspire to put the most prepared, best qualified person in the White House to be our President.
Logged
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Use of this web site in any manner signifies unconditional acceptance, without exception, of our terms of use.
Powered by SMF 1.1.13 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines LLC
 
Page created in 5.015 seconds with 19 queries.