Things we can't say about Obama...

[Guest]

Anyone who talks about any of the following will be roundly chastised by Obama, Obama's wife, 60% of the nation's democrats, American Islamists, and most of the media:

We can't talk about his name, especially the "Hussein" part. Why "Barack" and "Obama" are OK but "Hussein" isn't makes no sense to me.

We can't talk about his mother.

We can't talk about his father.

We can't talk about his grandmother unless he brings her up as a "typical white person."

We can't talk about his wife.

We can't talk about his preacher.

We can't talk about his terrorist friends.

We can't talk about his voting record.

We can't talk about his religion.

We can't talk about appeasement - even if not referring to his appeasement.

We can't talk about his color; we can't talk about his lack of color.

We can't talk about race.

We can't talk about bombers and mobsters who are his friends.

We can't talk about his lack of experience.

Can't talk about his income.

Can't talk about his flag pin or lack thereof.

We can't talk about his forgetfulness to show respect during the Star Spangled Banner.

There's not much we can say about him - which reflects the lack of substance in his own speeches.

What is most strange is the liberals who most argue for free expression are the ones who are most critical of free expression about Obama. Odd.

(Adapted from Rush Limbaugh, but all true nontheless.)

[Guest]

Rush Limbaugh! As idiotic as quoting Ann Coulter! WE really don't have to talk at all, Barack Obama will do that quite nicely for himself in the Obama/McCain debates. Buckle your seatbelt, dahling. You're in for a bumpy ride. It's the Bold vs. the Old!


p.s. Do you even know how many women's votes Obama picked up by just saying "Lay off my wife"? I'm betting lots and lots.

[Guest]

Rush Limbaugh! As idiotic as quoting Ann Coulter! WE really don't have to talk at all, Barack Obama will do that quite nicely for himself in the Obama/McCain debates. Buckle your seatbelt, dahling. You're in for a bumpy ride. It's the Bold vs. the Old!


p.s. Do you even know how many women's votes Obama picked up by just saying "Lay off my wife"? I'm betting lots and lots.

I'm with you Chelsea. By the way, the following is what one of McCain's Naval buddies has to say about him:

Why I Will Not Vote for John McCain
Phillip Butler | March 27, 2008

As some of you might know, John McCain is a long-time acquaintance of mine that goes way back to our time together at the U.S. Naval Academy and as Prisoners of War in Vietnam. He is a man I respect and admire in some ways. But there are a number of reasons why I will not vote for him for President of the United States.

When I was a Plebe (4th classman, or freshman) at the Naval Academy in 1957-58, I was assigned to the 17th Company for my four years there. In those days we had about 3,600 midshipmen spread among 24 companies, thus about 150 midshipmen to a company. As fortune would have it, John, a First Classman (senior) and his room mate lived directly across the hall from me and my two room mates. Believe me when I say that back then I would never in a million or more years have dreamed that the crazy guy across the hall would someday be a Senator and candidate for President!

John was a wild man. He was funny, with a quick wit and he was intelligent. But he was intent on breaking every USNA regulation in our 4 inch thick USNA Regulations book. And I believe he must have come as close to his goal as any midshipman who ever attended the Academy. John had me "coming around" to his room frequently during my plebe year. And on one occasion he took me with him to escape "over the wall" in the dead of night. He had a taxi cab waiting for us that took us to a bar some 7 miles away. John had a few beers, but forbid me to drink (watching out for me I guess) and made me drink cokes. I could tell many other midshipman stories about John that year and he unbelievably managed to graduate though he spent the majority of his first class year on restriction for the stuff he did get caught doing. In fact he barely managed to graduate, standing 5th from the bottom of his 800 man graduating class. I and many others have speculated that the main reason he did graduate was because his father was an Admiral, and also his grandfather, both U.S. Naval Academy graduates.

People often ask if I was a Prisoner of War with John McCain. My answer is always "No - John McCain was a POW with me." The reason is I was there for 8 years and John got there 2 ½ years later, so he was a POW for 5 ½ years. And we have our own seniority system, based on time as a POW.

John's treatment as a POW:

1) Was he tortured for 5 years? No. He was subjected to torture and maltreatment during his first 2 years, from September of 1967 to September of 1969. After September of 1969 the Vietnamese stopped the torture and gave us increased food and rudimentary health care. Several hundred of us were captured much earlier. I got there April 20, 1965 so my bad treatment period lasted 4 1/2 years. President Ho Chi Minh died on September 9, 1969, and the new regime that replaced him and his policies was more pragmatic. They realized we were worth a lot as bargaining chips if we were alive. And they were right because eventually Americans gave up on the war and agreed to trade our POW's for their country. A damn good trade in my opinion! But my point here is that John allows the media to make him out to be THE hero POW, which he knows is absolutely not true, to further his political goals.

2) John was badly injured when he was shot down. Both arms were broken and he had other wounds from his ejection. Unfortunately this was often the case - new POW's arriving with broken bones and serious combat injuries. Many died from their wounds. Medical care was non-existent to rudimentary. Relief from pain was almost never given and often the wounds were used as an available way to torture the POW. Because John's father was the Naval Commander in the Pacific theater, he was exploited with TV interviews while wounded. These film clips have now been widely seen. But it must be known that many POW's suffered similarly, not just John. And many were similarly exploited for political propaganda.

3) John was offered, and refused, "early release." Many of us were given this offer. It meant speaking out against your country and lying about your treatment to the press. You had to "admit" that the U.S. was criminal and that our treatment was "lenient and humane." So I, like numerous others, refused the offer. This was obviously something none of us could accept. Besides, we were bound by our service regulations, Geneva Conventions and loyalties to refuse early release until all the POW's were released, with the sick and wounded going first.

4) John was awarded a Silver Star and Purple Heart for heroism and wounds in combat. This heroism has been played up in the press and in his various political campaigns. But it should be known that there were approximately 600 military POW's in Vietnam. Among all of us, decorations awarded have recently been totaled to the following: Medals of Honor - 8, Service Crosses - 42, Silver Stars - 590, Bronze Stars - 958 and Purple Hearts - 1,249. John certainly performed courageously and well. But it must be remembered that he was one hero among many - not uniquely so as his campaigns would have people believe.

John McCain served his time as a POW with great courage, loyalty and tenacity. More that 600 of us did the same. After our repatriation a census showed that 95% of us had been tortured at least once. The Vietnamese were quite democratic about it. There were many heroes in North Vietnam. I saw heroism every day there. And we motivated each other to endure and succeed far beyond what any of us thought we had in ourselves. Succeeding as a POW is a group sport, not an individual one. We all supported and encouraged each other to survive and succeed. John knows that. He was not an individual POW hero. He was a POW who surmounted the odds with the help of many comrades, as all of us did.

I furthermore believe that having been a POW is no special qualification for being President of the United States. The two jobs are not the same, and POW experience is not, in my opinion, something I would look for in a presidential candidate.

Most of us who survived that experience are now in our late 60's and 70's. Sadly, we have died and are dying off at a greater rate than our non-POW contemporaries. We experienced injuries and malnutrition that are coming home to roost. So I believe John's age (73) and survival expectation are not good for being elected to serve as our President for 4 or more years.

I can verify that John has an infamous reputation for being a hot head. He has a quick and explosive temper that many have experienced first hand. Folks, quite honestly that is not the finger I want next to that red button.

It is also disappointing to see him take on and support Bush's war in Iraq, even stating we might be there for another 100 years. For me John represents the entrenched and bankrupt policies of Washington-as-usual. The past 7 years have proven to be disastrous for our country. And I believe John's views on war, foreign policy, economics, environment, health care, education, national infrastructure and other important areas are much the same as those of the Bush administration.

I'm disappointed to see John represent himself politically in ways that are not accurate. He is not a moderate Republican. On some issues he is a maverick. But his voting record is far to the right. I fear for his nominations to our Supreme Court, and the consequent continuing loss of individual freedoms, especially regarding moral and religious issues. John is not a religious person, but he has taken every opportunity to ally himself with some really obnoxious and crazy fundamentalist ministers lately. I was also disappointed to see him cozy up to Bush because I know he hates that man. He disingenuously and famously put his arm around the guy, even after Bush had intensely disrespected him with lies and slander. So on these and many other instances, I don't see that John is the "straight talk express" he markets himself to be.

Senator John Sidney McCain, III is a remarkable man who has made enormous personal achievements. And he is a man that I am proud to call a fellow POW who "Returned With Honor." That's our POW motto. But since many of you keep asking what I think of him, I've decided to write it out. In short, I think John Sidney McCain, III is a good man, but not someone I will vote for in the upcoming election to be our President of the United States.

[Guest]

Lil, I have to say that was one of the most impactful statements I've read about McCain to date. At first, I was going so what? I've always understood that there were many other POWs and heroes in 'Nam. I'd like to think others are well aware of this fact, too. However, once he got past the military issus, the man spoke volumes to me. He wasn't mean-spirited, he didn't lie, he stated the facts as he saw them. For those on the fence, I hope they read this and take it to heart.

I did do some quick internet research on Cmdr. Butler (yes, he stayed in the military and retired as a Commander). From what I could find on various sites, he is a man of integrity, charitable, intelligent.

I wish we could find more well-thought out comments like these for both sides, whether pro or con a candidate, rather than the smear campaigns.

[Guest]

A vote for John McCain would not though be a vote for the John McCain of 1958-1959, but for the John McCain of 2008-2009.

I still have the "So what!" re-action to that statement by Phillip Butler. >:(

[Guest]

I wish we could find more well-thought out comments like these for both sides, whether pro or con a candidate, rather than the smear campaigns.

One woman's "smear" is another man's truth. It's fascinating how the expression of doubts and concerns about a candidates' associates, family background, past actions, voting record, and probable future tendencies is called "smear" by those who don't agree. There is apparently very little that could be said about Obama that wouldn't be labeled "smear" by his many fans - which is the point of the first post.

[Guest]

I guess it depends on whether a person thinks there should be limits established in these campaigns.There was an article in USA today which discussed this, talking about the issue of political spouses for example:

"In Mrs. Obama's case, she is an acocmplished professional who has campaigned vigorously on her husband's behalf. If the Obamas seek the benefits of having her do so, they must be willing to accept the scrutiny that her words - and gaffes - attract. This is not to say that all criticisms of spouses are fair. The Tennessee GOP critique of Michelle Obama based on one line in February about being proud of her country - (taken out of context) - she later said she meant that she was proud of the political process for the first time - is at best, a manipulative effort to suggest that the Obamas are unpatriotic or ungrateful.

In Mrs. McCain's case, her vast wealth raises legitimate questions about potential conflicts of interest and how she could be indirectly aiding his campaign through such practices as allwoing him the use of her company's jet. For her, the issue is less a personal attack than it is a criticism of her secrecy on money issues. Her situation is similar to that of Teresa Heinz Kerry, who eventually agreed to release a portion of her tax forms. In both cases, the imperatives of ensuring open and honest government trump the privacy desires of candidate spouses. .......Like it or not, spouses have become an important part of the process. They do not deserve to be dragged into the mud. But nor are they entitled to blanket immunity."

I think any reasonable person can see that some things "talked about" are really smears, thinly veiled attempts to distort the issues to bring a candidate down into the mud, while other things are an important part of the political process.

[Guest]

So Dancer, if I understand you correctly based on this post, what was said about
Michelle was a smear and what was said about Cindy was OK?

[Guest]

...... It's the Bold vs. the Old! ......


...and that bothers me a lot!

We have developed into a society that seems to consider being younger than the other person makes the younger one smarter, wiser, and more capable; and the older as dottering, locked-in-the-past, and ready for the ice flow. That's been the Hollywood representation for years, where the parent is the dumbbell and the kids are the only smart ones in the family. Whether it's TV shows, commercials or movies, that's been the propaganda, and the indoctrination seems to have solidified. Now it has vested itself into politics.

Being President is a cerebral job requiring not only an intellect; but 1) the knowledge of history (or you are doomed to repeat it), how government works (domestically and internationally) and how incident/crisis management is done; and 2) the skills of a diplomat, poker player, negotiator, senior executive and troubleshooter. Being an athlete or equivalent is unnecessary - as proven by President Roosevelt.

I kinda like "old" versus "bold" - As I tell many of my younger colleagues "the road you have yet to approach, I have already travelled successfully - you still have to prove yourself!"

Sen. Obama may have a more plausible approach to issues than Sen. McCain, but that will only be determined by a comparison of approaches to issues, not who has the latest birthday and acts more energetic.

I'm still wrestling with whether being POTUS and being a pilot of a commercial aircraft are in some ways similar, even if different in scale. Both hold lives in their hands, the passengers (as citizenry is) are dependent on the pilot's knowledge and skill, and both are given responsibility of significant assets to do their job. So the saying, "there are old pilots, and there are bold pilots - but there are no old, bold pilots..." keeps coming into my mind.

"Bold" has its place, but bold also connotates what could be unquantified risk. I'd like to know what all of the "risks" of being "bold" entail, and then make a determination how much "bold" I'm willing to "risk."


In Mrs. McCain's case, her vast wealth raises legitimate questions about potential conflicts of interest and how she could be indirectly aiding his campaign....

It's amazing how none if this was an issue regarding Sen. Kerry's spouse whose fortune makes Ms. McCain look like a pauper.

[Guest]

It's amazing how none if this was an issue regarding Sen. Kerry's spouse whose fortune makes Ms. McCain look like a pauper.


But it was an issue, until she disclosed portions of her tax returns.

[Guest]

...and that bothers me a lot!

We have developed into a society that seems to consider being younger than the other person makes the younger one smarter, wiser, and more capable; and the older as dottering, locked-in-the-past, and ready for the ice flow. That's been the Hollywood representation for years, where the parent is the dumbbell and the kids are the only smart ones in the family. Whether it's TV shows, commercials or movies, that's been the propaganda, and the indoctrination seems to have solidified. Now it has vested itself into politics.

Being President is a cerebral job requiring not only an intellect; but 1) the knowledge of history (or you are doomed to repeat it), how government works (domestically and internationally) and how incident/crisis management is done; and 2) the skills of a diplomat, poker player, negotiator, senior executive and troubleshooter. Being an athlete or equivalent is unnecessary - as proven by President Roosevelt.

I kinda like "old" versus "bold" - As I tell many of my younger colleagues "the road you have yet to approach, I have already travelled successfully - you still have to prove yourself!"

Sen. Obama may have a more plausible approach to issues than Sen. McCain, but that will only be determined by a comparison of approaches to issues, not who has the latest birthday and acts more energetic.


If you think age isn’t a factor in the presidency, would you vote for a candidate who was 100-years old and healthy?

There is obviously more of a chance for notieceable mental and physical decline in an older person vs. a younger person. Not to say it is guaranteed to happen to McCain, but it is certainly a factor I will consider when I vote.

[Guest]

If you think age isn’t a factor in the presidency, would you vote for a candidate who was 100-years old and healthy?

There is obviously more of a chance for notieceable mental and physical decline in an older person vs. a younger person. Not to say it is guaranteed to happen to McCain, but it is certainly a factor I will consider when I vote.


I personally don't care if the person is 80 years old - or even older! Competency is the issue, not chronology. We fight age discrimination on a daily basis, yet we seem to want to impose it for the POTUS job?

The population of The Villages is a great example of the fact that older Americans are not walking shrubbery. We're smart, capable and lucky in many cases to be able to choose NOT to work full-time. Some of the smartest people I've met recently, and also competent to take on almost any job they want, reside in Zip Codes 32159 & 32162.

There is a line-of-succession for good reason, because things happen to people that is unexpected. Ironically, when Pres. Kennedy died, his successor was 9 years older. That didn't seem to upset anyone.

[Guest]

Steve, you beat me to it. I was thinking the same thing when Lil lefty made her statement on Michelle. Cindy McCain is under no obligation to report her income. She's rich. And you're right, I didn't see all this righteous indignation with John Kerry's Heinz wife (can't think of her name).

This issue with Michelle is that she has made defamatory statement against candidates, the President and sounds alot like the right Rev Wright !! She makes herself accountable for that by doing so. If she just supported her husband to say what a great guy he is or whatever, there would be no problem.

No tears for her -- this woman knows exactly what she is doing. Michelle -- can't stand the heat --get out of the kitchen !

Oopss, can we say that ;D

[Guest]

SteveZ, if you want to go on "brain power" alone in this election, Obama has already won!

As far as "Bold vs. Old" It could also mean bold new paths, a fresh eye, a new way to look at our world vs. same old, same old, politics as usual.

But, I'm not going to be coy, I was eluding to many things and yes age is a factor to me. So, IMHO, if the slipper fits, let McCain shuffle away wearing it.

I'm no "spring chicken" by any means. But, I believe in the youth of America. I clearly remember the Kennedy years and I think the youth of America feel that with Obama. I envy them. What a wonderful feeling that was to truly believe in someone for the first time. :bigthumbsup: They'll be out in droves. Just my opinion. ;)

[Guest]

SteveZ, if you want to go on "brain power" alone in this election, Obama has already won!

As far as "Bold vs. Old" It could also mean bold new paths, a fresh eye, a new way to look at our world vs. same old, same old, politics as usual.

But, I'm not going to be coy, I was eluding to many things and yes age is a factor to me. So, IMHO, if the slipper fits, let McCain shuffle away wearing it.

I'm no "spring chicken" by any means. But, I believe in the youth of America. I clearly remember the Kennedy years and I think the youth of America feel that with Obama. I envy them. What a wonderful feeling that was to truly believe in someone for the first time. :bigthumbsup: They'll be out in droves. Just my opinion. ;)


I hope you are right about the brain power, but I know a bunch of smart folk without the sense to get out of the rain. Intellect without knowledge and skills equals experimentation. POTUS was never meant to be an apprenticeship - the stakes are too high!

As far as the old vs. bold, the context as demonstrated in previous posts to this one show it was an age issue.

I too have faith in the youth, especially those I've seen in-and-out of Bethesda Naval, Walter Reed, and the Washington, DC VA Hospitals, as well as those I've had the honor to visit on-the-job protecting our borders and interior. Thank God for each and every one of them!

I clearly remember the Kennedy years, too. However, it seems that folk want to only remember Pres. Kennedy as that charismatic, handsome guy who was assassinated, and the "Camelot" aura that surrounded him. In the 34 months he was president: 1) we entered Vietnam in force; 2) relations with the USSR dipped, and the Berlin Wall was built; 3) covert actions to depose of Fidel Castro backfired, and the Bay of Pigs disaster occurred; 4) the number of nuclear ICBMs was increased from 63 to 424 (the "Bomb" era was now on us); 5) his Secretary of Defense (Robert McNamara) agreed to various defense sweetheart deals, one of which being the infamous M-16 rifle (fielded too early, resulting in battlefield deaths); 6) created the Food Stamp program (which is still a mess); and 7) brought nepotism to new heights with the appointment of his brother as Attorney General. Quite a record in less than three years.

We had one Pied Piper in the '60s and look what all that youthful enthusiasm got us - nuclear proliferation, a tougher Iron Curtain, Asian wars, Caribbean catastrophes, mismanaged entitlements, an inner-circle of profit-seeking cronies, and subsequent legislation to deter familial nepotism. I sure hope this time around, that youthful enthusiasm seeks substance over style, guts over glitter, and ability over ambition.

[Guest]

And yet, with all you stated, the world was behind us. Not true now. I want to see that again. I'm the eternal optimist. I don't know when "negotiation" became a bad word the way Bush/McCain make it out to be. Keep you friends close and your enemies closer. ;)

[Guest]

when Lil lefty made her statement on Michelle. Cindy McCain is under no obligation to report her income. She's rich. And you're right, I didn't see all this righteous indignation with John Kerry's Heinz wife (can't think of her name).

Thanks, I like it (Lil lefty)....has a nice ring to it.

As far as Theresa Heinz Kerry, from what I've read on the internet, she at first didn't disclose her tax returns during the campaign, but after a "torrent of criticism", eventually disclosed a partial return. So my question is, if the Democratic spouse had to do it, why not the Republican spouse (Cindy)?

But back to the USA Today article, what it appeared to be saying was, yes, if the spouses are campaigning for their husbands, their statements are going to be heavily scrutinized. But, the article goes on to say, in the case of Michelle, the McCain camp took her remark out of context, and manipulated it to make her sound unpatriotic. The article implied there should be limits to the mudslinging, and the McCain group overstepped.

[Guest]

..... I don't know when "negotiation" became a bad word the way Bush/McCain make it out to be. Keep you friends close and your enemies closer. ;)

Negotiation is not a "bad word" and one of the finest arts there is. I used to teach it, and had a great time doing so. While I agree with the "keep your friends close and your enemies closer, " there's always wariness because enemies carry daggers...

The most difficult, if not impossible, task is to negotiate in a fishbowl. Audiences are the greatest inhibitors to successful negotiations. So, the public position is rarely the private one. It's kinda like the old saying credited to Otto Von Bismarck - Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made. Better to appreciate the result than criticize the creative process!

[Guest]

Lil lefty (thank you, I thought it was clever too).

You're not listening. Michelle's statement has been played and replayed in its entirety. Like her husband, she tends to mouth off and then have to take it back and spin and spin. Again, she can say how great her husband is like any other wife; however, when she comes out with policy statements and criticism of other candidates policies or whatever, she is then a SURROGATE for that campaign. She opens herself up to the same scrutiny as anyone else would get. If she can't take the heat -- get out of the kitchen. And believe me, I have heard some on talk radio put it much more harshly.

Lil -- listen to the entire speech for yourself. I'm sure you won't be able to come away with any other conclusion either. Also, listen to her follow-up spin. It isn't pretty. I'm sure you and I have both been around long enough to see through it what ever side of the 'isle' you sit on.

[Guest]

Lil Dancer and Chels,
I luv you two for not giving up!!!
Life is soo good.
Even the Republicans are not happy with Bush or McCain.
I had lunch today with the chairman of the Republican party in this county. As the wife said, "WE are really disappointed. We are Republicans but we won't vote for McCain. Plus, McCain told a number of people he didn't vote for Bush.
I think most Americans are not going to vote Republican either.

I won't waste my time arguing on here.

[Guest]

Livingston, you must admit there is spin on both sides. Bush/McCain have so much spin around them, it would make Rapunzel green with envy. I will argue with you on one thing though. I think Michelle Obama is more than ready to take the heat. I know her to be a strong, intelligent and vibrant woman. I just believe that Obama was being a very respectful husband. And trust the "Queen of Focus Groups" here, that won him more than just a few votes. ;D