digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

McCain opts out of hard truths

msnbc.msn.com — GOP 'straight talk' candidate changes ways with latest campaign ad

show profanity settings
expand all
  • skewl, on 08/05/2008, -4/+22I really liked McCain when he was above the fray, straight talking' as he would call it. Now, the latest commercials, "Pump".
    • PhilLesh69, on 08/06/2008, -2/+4He was much more believable as a "maverick" candidate in 2000. I only wish he was elected back then.

      The world might actually be a different place than it is, had he been elected back then.

      But he has since been brought into the fold of the political power brokers. He had a meeting with Bush where I'm sure he was promised the presidency in 2009 if he agreed to appoint certain neocon players to his administration, and he went ahead and made that deal with the devil.

      Not that Obama is necessarily that much different. When I saw how everyone reacted to him giving the opening speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, I rolled my eyes and said "*****, just watch, he'll be the next Democratic nominee for president". Because everyone was like "wow, he's so well spoken" and the media was all over him, even though nobody had heard of him, practically, until that speech.

      Bottom line, our politics is scripted and staged for our consumption, as voters.

      Meanwhile, the people who really control our country, the people who own it, keep doing what they need to do in order to maintain wealth and power, even though we don't even know who they even are.
  • charm803, on 08/05/2008, -7/+31"Who can you thank for rising prices at the pump?” the narrator asks. She leaves the question hanging, while a recording from a recent political rally grows louder and louder. “Obama! Obama!” the crowd screams."

    I guess you can't blame the current administration anymore!

    • FlaG8r, on 08/05/2008, -3/+22You can blame Phil Gramm, John McCain's go-to guy on the economy,
    • birdmanrush, on 08/07/2008, -0/+0You can't blame the current administration. Demand from India and China has skyrocketed while world production has stayed the same. Maybe if the Clinton administration had not banned drilling in ANWAR and other places in the U.S. then prices would be lower. It is a little something called law of supply and demand. Libs say it will take seven years for us to get the oil out of the ground and say because of that it is not a viable solution. Then how high will gas prices be seven years from now? What if we had started drilling seven to ten years ago for the oil right here in our own country? Prices would not be a s high as they are now. And the left harps on the idea of we need to get off of foreign oil yet we cannot drill for our own. How insane is that? Leftists keep preaching on alternative sources of energy, which I do not have a problem with, but while we are developing these technologies how about we drill to lower gasoline prices?
  • poprocksandsoda, on 08/05/2008, -18/+1I think this election will be close; lots of propoganda coming from both sides. Why can't elections be decided like they used to be in a kinder, gentler climate:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pspmBbbOHh8
    • lamiaconfitor, on 08/06/2008, -2/+8Back when candy drop rainbows and unicorns governed the universe?
  • chkdg8, on 08/06/2008, -5/+22˙ʇsıʇɹɐ ʇıɥsllnq ɐ sı uıɐɔɔɯ ¡¡uı ʇsnɾ sıɥʇ
    Try that for the 'straight talk' express.
  • deadbaby, on 08/06/2008, -2/+11Well hello there mainstream media... Welcome to the party.
  • Genecalypse, on 08/06/2008, -2/+10lets just watch paris' video again
    • DavidGX, on 08/06/2008, -2/+10I have that video.

      Oh wait, you meant the McCain ad.. yeah, I knew that.
  • ErickStevenson, on 08/06/2008, -2/+8This is coming from MSNBC? wow
    • AJKenny84, on 08/06/2008, -1/+4It's actually from The New Yorker. MSNBC posts articles from The NY Times and Washington Post as well as other sources.
    • mrpetey, on 08/06/2008, -2/+3WOW - to call the NY Times and Washington Post "sources" is a bit of a stretch. I would call it more like look a reporter has an agenda, so lets write a letter to the editor, but sell it as news; and MSNBC just picked up the story 'cause they can't write enough of their own stuff to fill a web page.
      • kanabiis, on 08/06/2008, -0/+1Oh so NOW the NY Times is no longer a source. Back when Judith Miller was gushing praise and 'insider' info regarding WMDs in Iraq you people screamed it from the roof tops how even the NY Times thinks Saddam has WMDs and Iraq needs to be invaded.

        When a reporter says what you want them to say, they are reliable sources, when they say opposite from what you want to hear they are the liberal media.

        Whatever.......
  • cnot3, on 08/06/2008, -14/+6But Obama doesn't? What reason did he give for voting on FISA, or the reinstating the Patriot Act? Both of them ***** suck. We're screwed either way.
  • nosamesame, on 08/06/2008, -13/+6Why is Obama scared to debate McCain in a town hall meeting.

    He's been challenged several times by McCain, in fact McCain wanted to have something like 10 debates, and Obama has only agreed to 3.

    That says something about Obama and his teleprompter binky.
    • AdInventive, on 08/06/2008, -3/+6I have heard both of them stammer out answers without the help of cue cards and I am of the opinion that Obama still comes off as more capable.

      Town Hall meetings are *****. They should just stand up on a stage and go at it against each other. Would make for better TV too.

      Although, McCain would probably break a hip or something.
    • siszam, on 08/06/2008, -4/+9It tells me that Obama has better things to do than stand around debating a poorly armed halfwit. Seriously, McCain beats himself down with is own ads. He stands no chance against his intellectual superior in a debate. Obama has campaigning to do. Three debates is more than enough in the short time we have till the election. Why doesn't McCain want to campaign? Notice how poorly he does with larger crowds. Notice how angry and flustered he gets in uncontrolled environments. McCain wants the world to narrow down to his little universe but it doesn't work that way. Not when you want to lead a country. It's not about him. It's about the people and Obama gets that.
    • Wartyboskfapped, on 08/06/2008, -3/+9I think he's going easy on McCain, personally. I mean, listen to McCain talk.. then listen to Obama. There's no contest. McCain sounds like a really old man who ums and ahs, whereas nobody can really doubt that Obama is very good at public speaking, putting his points forth clearly. I wonder myself why Obama doesn't immediately debate McCain, because it seems pretty ***** obvious that Obama will wipe the floor with the doddering old bastard.
    • Easty, on 08/06/2008, -3/+4Because McCain packs his townhalls with his supporters, and the townhall proposition was simply an attempt for McCain to exert dominance over Obama by having him follow him from place to place over America.
  • zadadka, on 08/06/2008, -14/+6Oh look, another "McCain lied" post.
    *yawns*
    • BotchaMcCoola, on 08/06/2008, -0/+3Your kind makes us proud and strong to the advanced countries.
  • halogenik, on 08/06/2008, -3/+19That's really the problem with the conservative republican way of thinking: They react to every action in an equal or opposite reaction, which is not always the best idea.

    Problem: High gas prices
    Solution: Drill offshore

    Problem: 9/11 Terrorist Attacks
    Solution: "Eye for an eye." Begin a war and invade another country in backlash

    Problem: Domestic Homeland Security
    Solution: Build a high fence on our borders and wiretap phones

    Problem: Declining economy
    Solution: Give everyone $300 in economic stimulus relief to spend on the economy

    I could go on and on. The point I'm trying to make is that the solution to every problem is not always this simple, often opposite solution. Think outside the box. Think long-term. Think about other ways in which our nation's problems will be permanently solved, not ways in which our country will benefit from these temporary band-aid fixes only to have them recur, or become worse in the future. I think that's the main message of Obama's campaign: don't only plan for now. Plan for now and plan for the future. that's the main reason I'm behind him. Even though you could argue that he flip-flopped on FISA and offshore oil drilling, I think that there's a big difference between flip-flopping and compromising. We as voters often want to see our presidents in black and white terms: You're either for gay rights or you're against gay rights. You're either for oil drilling or you're against oil drilling. You're either for America or against America. But in reality, being 100% for or 100% against something without waver is unrealistic, and at best idiotic. Bush has proven that many, many times over with his unwillingness to negotiate with foreign leaders on many, many topics.

    Regardless of what McCain and his cronies say about Obama flip-flopping and Obama not having the experience to be a leader, the Obama that you see now is the Obama that you're going to get as a president: one that understands the problems our nation is facing, and is willing to compromise to get real, LONG-TERM solutions to our problems.

    Call Obama a flip-flopper if you must, but negotiation is a key attribute that's needed in any candidate. This maverick hard-ass stuff just doesn't cut it in the America of today.
    • AgainstObama, on 08/06/2008, -12/+4Obama is an idiot.

      High gas prices = taking profits away from American business and higher taxes.

      Enough said. Obama's lack of experience shows. Oh, what is Obama's stance on drilling anyways? Lets check what direction the wind is blowing.
      • damndj, on 08/06/2008, -0/+4"Obama is an idiot"

        I stopped reading right there and dugg you down.
    • R0am3r, on 08/06/2008, -10/+4Time for a reality check here. The Democrat solution to these problems:

      Problem: High gas prices
      Solution: Raise taxes on oil companies. Solve the problem at a later date.

      Problem: 9/11 Terrorist Attacks
      Solution: Send in an army of lawyers. Prosecute and pardon later.

      Problem: Domestic Homeland Security
      Solution: Amnesty for everyone. Enroll in social programs.

      Problem: Declining economy
      [Obama] Solution: Give everyone $1000 and tax the oil companies who will in-turn raise gas prices.

      Can you understand why the Congress has a 9% approval rating? They simply don't get it!
      • sodade, on 08/06/2008, -4/+3Oh gee - you made some of that ***** up and left out some important things. How typical.
    • mrpetey, on 08/06/2008, -9/+2NoBama understandings NOTHING!!!!!

      How pathetic you think he does. This man - if you can call him that - is emptied headed, full of platitudes, but he can horsesqueeze (BS for the slow) up a good talk. Used car salesmen can do the same thing.

      143 days in congress and the man has EVERYTHING it takes to be a messiah and save the little people. Talk about people who don't have a clue.

      And for the record to call the man an idiot - that is giving him some credit.
      • damndj, on 08/06/2008, -0/+3You don't even know what you're talking about, do you?
      • kanabiis, on 08/06/2008, -0/+2And what are your solutions? What have you done to make America better? Jack and *****...

        Why do you hate America so much???
  • diggadigga, on 08/06/2008, -0/+13"The past few weeks have seen a change in McCain. He has hired new advisers, and with them he seems to have worked out a new approach. He is no longer telling the sorts of hard truths that people would prefer not to confront, or even half-truths that they might find vaguely discomfiting. Instead, he’s opted out of truth altogether. “Well, that certainly didn’t take long,” the Times observed."

    This was my reaction http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/6092/la35bac0d3 ...
  • MeatPlow, on 08/06/2008, -13/+5What does Hillary do every morning after she shaves her pussy?




    Sends him off to work.
  • WampaOne, on 08/06/2008, -1/+1www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdLX3aRNaNk
  • Sansui, on 08/06/2008, -1/+3I had a discussion with my parents when I went to visit them last December up in NY. They were Hillary supporters, but were also open to McCain, whereas at the time I was unsure but leaning toward Edwards/Obama.

    I remember telling them I didn't agree with a lot of McCain's stances, and I was vehemently opposed to war in the middle east, but I respected his straightforward candor. How far he has fallen since then... he has sold himself out to anyone and anything that could possibly give him an edge, perceived or real, to try and win this election.

    He's become a sad old man, nothing more than a sycophant like the girls he was comparing Obama to just recently.
  • duckley, on 08/06/2008, -1/+6"The past few weeks have seen a change in McCain. He has hired new advisers, and with them he seems to have worked out a new approach. He is no longer telling the sorts of hard truths that people would prefer not to confront, or even half-truths that they might find vaguely discomfiting. Instead, he’s opted out of truth altogether. “Well, that certainly didn’t take long,” the Times observed.'

    Republicans Everywhere:
    IMPEACH them.

    PROSECUTE them.

    CONVICT them.

    IMPRISON them.

  • duckley, on 08/06/2008, -0/+4Recent history suggests that Presidential campaigns don’t reward integrity; the candidate who refuses to compromise his principles is unlikely to have a chance to act on them. Still, McCain’s slide is saddening. That he has sunk to the level of “Pump” a full month before Labor Day really doesn’t leave him—or the race—far to go.
  • LanceBoyle, on 08/06/2008, -1/+2John McCain is all about rich people, insiders, polluters and developers and protecting them from average Americans. He's just an extension of the Bush Administration and he'll say or do anything to get elected.
    • BotchaMcCoola, on 08/06/2008, -0/+1I don't think McCain appears to be that smart.
  • Lyk4n, on 08/06/2008, -0/+5McCain = Bush
  • flyersguy85, on 08/06/2008, -3/+1Come on people, all i keep hearing is that same old thing that the media is telling everyone. People that disagree with offshore drilling...that's fine, you can disagree with it, but until I hear a decent solution to those opposed to it, I'm not going to take you seriously. It's simply supply and demand, import and export taxes. If you increase the supply and if WE control the supply, prices have to come down. I understand that this is not a long-term solution and I do'nt think anyone thinks it is. But just because we won't feel the effects for a few years doesn't mean we shouldn't start it immediately. Because you know that alternative energy fuels aren't going to be mainstream anytime soon. So why not set it up just in case? It won't cost us money, the oil companies are willing to foot the entire bill. And if alternative energy sources do become mainstream before we reap any benefits from this...so what? We didn't pay for it in the first place, the "evil" oil companies did. So I really don't see the problem here.

    Also, it's not as if Obama has some grand plan to fix the energy crisis. His plan is: Let's create alternative energy sources so we aren't dependent on other people. GREAT IDEA OBAMA!!! I wonder how long he stayed up last night formulating that genius plan. EVERYONE KNOWS WE SHOULD DO THIS! But that is a long-long-long-term solution and will not bring relief to consumers in the next 5 to 10 years. So it's a great idea to support that research, but you have to bring relief to the public soon so that we can continue to support alternative energy research.

    Also, obligatory Bush is evil/McCain is the devil comment...blahblahblah
    • Logicexe, on 08/06/2008, -0/+1Did you read the entire article? Did you read the part where they said that it would take until 2030 for offshore drilling to have any effect on oil prices? Did you miss the part where the impact on oil costs would be insignificant because the amount of oil gained from offshore drilling would be a drop in the bucket compared to world wide demand and production?

      Read some of the Department of Energy's studies, this whole offshore drilling thing is nothing but a manufactured controversy, one that should have been rectified long ago by simply telling people the truth about how useless it would be in the short and long run.

      I'm against offshore drilling because it's useless. Useless in the short term, useless in the long term. It shifts attention away from the problem of rising oil prices by presenting a fake solution so we can keep on doing all the wrong things.
      • flyersguy85, on 08/06/2008, -0/+0So you are telling me that increasing the supply of a product within a capitalistic economy will not reduce the price of that product? Did you just reinvent economics or something? And who cares about the "world wide demand"...we would produce oil for us and therefore increase the supply to us. That would be the whole point of doing it and therefore we would have to put some regulations on where the oil can go...which to me seems pretty reasonable and i believe the oil companies would be more than willing to make that concession to get permission to drill at all.

        And 2030? I keep hearing these ridiculous dates about when we would actually see an impact on oil prices, yet no one has any reason or evidence for those dates. We know how to drill, we have pipelines in the area of where we want to drill...so why would it take 20 years to get oil out and refine it? The companies have been waiting and prepared to do this for years...it wouldn't take 20 years.

        And lastly, whats the worst that could happen here? We give them permission to drill, they drill, and it has no effect...thereby doing what?? Costing the oil companies money...that they were willing to risk? So what?

        Hold them responsible for the environment around them and we hold nothing to lose by letting them drill.
      • Logicexe, on 08/06/2008, -0/+1"Although existing moratoria on leasing in the OCS will expire in 2012, the AEO2007 reference case assumes that they will be reinstated, as they have in the past. Current restrictions are therefore assumed to prevail for the remainder of the projection period, with no exploration or development allowed in areas currently unavailable to leasing. The OCS access case assumes that the current moratoria will not be reinstated, and that exploration and development of resources in those areas will begin in 2012.

        Assumptions about exploration, development, and production of economical fields (drilling schedules, costs, platform selection, reserves-to-production ratios, etc.) in the OCS access case are based on data for fields in the western Gulf of Mexico that are of similar water depth and size. Exploration and development on the OCS in the Pacific, the Atlantic, and the eastern Gulf are assumed to proceed at rates similar to those seen in the early development of the Gulf region. In addition, it is assumed that local infrastructure issues and other potential non-Federal impediments will be resolved after Federal access restrictions have been lifted. With these assumptions, technically recoverable undiscovered resources in the lower 48 OCS increase to 59 billion barrels of oil and 288 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, as compared with the reference case levels of 41 billion barrels and 210 trillion cubic feet.

        The projections in the OCS access case indicate that access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030. Leasing would begin no sooner than 2012, and production would not be expected to start before 2017. Total domestic production of crude oil from 2012 through 2030 in the OCS access case is projected to be 1.6 percent higher than in the reference case, and 3 percent higher in 2030 alone, at 5.6 million barrels per day. For the lower 48 OCS, annual crude oil production in 2030 is projected to be 7 percent higher—2.4 million barrels per day in the OCS access case compared with 2.2 million barrels per day in the reference case (Figure 20). Because oil prices are determined on the international market, however, any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant."

        http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/ongr ...

        Direct from the US department of energy.

        Do you really think th oil companies would stand by and allow the US government to restrict where they can sell their oil? If oil is going for significantly higher prices elsewhere they will sell their oil elsewhere. Besides, America currently uses 25 million barrels of oil per day. Offshore drilling would provide, at best, less then 6 million barrels. So even assuming that no other domestic oil wells decline until 2030 (they will since they've been in decline for decades) we still fall far short of meeting the demand in 2008, much less the demand of 2030.

        As I said, absolutely useless. It's an environmental risk for virtually no gain.
  • swoopdog, on 08/06/2008, -4/+1Obama: Change, Hope etc etc and here's a vague idea about something or other....VOTE FOR ME!
    • damndj, on 08/06/2008, -0/+2At least he offers something over McCain who has ZERO.
  • beauley, on 08/06/2008, -0/+1How important is the presidential election to each and every American? Should we study the background of our candidate of choice before we go to the ballot box?
    http://www.socyberty.com/Politics/11-Point-Guide-V ...
    11 Point Guide: Voting For President
  • topgigmedia, on 08/06/2008, -0/+1dugg down because I said something that wasn't pro Obama (even if it is true)? Simply sad.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.