PDA

View Full Version : McCain disavows aide's comment about terrorism


Jeremy
06-23-2008, 06:27 PM
McCain disavows aide's comment about terrorism (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080623/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_terrorism)

By GLEN JOHNSON, Associated Press Writer

FRESNO, Calif. - A top adviser to John McCain said another terrorist attack on U.S. soil would be a "big advantage" for the Republican presidential candidate, drawing a sharp rebuke Monday from both the presumed GOP nominee and Democrat Barack Obama.

Charlie Black, already in the spotlight for his past lobbying work, is quoted in the upcoming July 7 edition of Fortune magazine as saying such an attack "certainly would be a big advantage to him." Black said Monday he regretted the comment.

Black is also quoted as saying the "unfortunate event" of the assassination of former Pakistani leader Benazir Bhutto in December 2007 "helped us."

Questioned about Black's comments during a news conference, McCain said, "I cannot imagine why he would say it. 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."

Citing his work to establish a commission to investigate the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and his membership on the Senate Armed Services Committee, McCain added: "I cannot imagine it, and so, if he said that and I don't know the context I strenuously disagree."

Obama spokesman Bill Burton said in a statement: "The fact that John McCain's top adviser says that a terrorist attack on American soil would be a 'big advantage' for their political campaign is a complete disgrace, and is exactly the kind of politics that needs to change. Barack Obama will turn the page on these failed policies and this cynical and divisive brand of politics so that we can unite this nation around a common purpose to finish the fight against al-Qaida."

The remarks caught McCain flat-footed on a day when he focused on energy issues first in a speech, then at a town-hall meeting and then during a news conference as he stood beside two $100,000 electric cars. McCain offered $300 million to anyone who develops a revolutionary automobile battery, and he predicted such incentives would lower alternative energy costs.

Moments later, he was befuddled when reporters asked about Black's comments. Black was similarly surprised when reporters happened upon him outside a later McCain fundraiser.

Speaking quietly, Black read from handwritten notes. "I deeply regret the comments. They were inappropriate. I recognize that John McCain has devoted his entire adult life to protecting his country and placing its security before every other consideration," Black said.

Black repeatedly has argued that McCain a former Navy pilot and Vietnam prisoner of war who has traveled the globe while serving in Congress benefits any time national security matters are the news of the day. By contrast, Obama has less than four years experience in the Senate and has paid only one visit to Iraq. He plans a second trip before the November election.

During the 2004 presidential race, President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and other Republicans argued that Democratic nominee John Kerry was soft on terrorism; the argument resonated with voters. The GOP also questioned the Democrats' record on national security in 2002, with White House political adviser Karl Rove saying Republicans should not shy away from citing terrorism concerns as a reason to vote for their party.

The approach also paid dividends at the polls during that year's congressional elections.

The GOP line that Democrats had a pre-Sept. 11 mind-set failed in the 2006 midterm elections as Democrats wrested control of Congress from the Republicans.

More recently, former White House press secretary Scott McClellan wrote in a memoir that during the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Bush and his team tried to make the weapons of mass destruction "threat and the Iraqi connection to terrorism appear just a little more certain, a little less questionable than they were."

For his part, McCain has tried to portray Obama as naive on national security and foreign policy.

On Monday, McCain told reporters he was stunned that Obama has never been briefed by Gen. David Petraeus, who is leading U.S. forces in Iraq, yet Obama is calling for a U.S. troop withdrawal.

"Remarkable how someone can make an assessment of the situation without asking for a briefing from the commanding general," McCain said.

lamberts-lost-tooth
06-23-2008, 06:44 PM
Obama distances himself from Farrakhan
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/01/obama_distances.html

Obama distances himself from Clinton
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21022881/

Obama distances himself from Rev. Wright
http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0430/uselection.html

Obama distances himself from Rev Pfleger
http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2008/05/obama_distances_himself_from_a.html

Obama distances himself from indicted supporter, Rezko
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003743411_webobama11.html

Obama Distances Himself from Book on U.S.-Israeli Relations
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/09/12/3802/

Jeremy
06-23-2008, 06:46 PM
I wonder if any of those people

said another terrorist attack on U.S. soil would be a "big advantage" for the Republican presidential candidate

lamberts-lost-tooth
06-23-2008, 06:47 PM
I wonder if any of those people

Do you really want to compare quotes against the "Honorable" Rev Wright?

Atlanta Dan
06-23-2008, 06:51 PM
Rev Wright wasn't a senior adviser to Obama's campaign

That having been said, Black is correct - as Michael Kinsley said, a gaffe is when a politician is telling the truth

lamberts-lost-tooth
06-23-2008, 06:54 PM
Rev Wright wasn't a senior adviser to Obama's campaign

That having been said, Black is correct - as Michael Kinsley said, a gaffe is when a politician is telling the truth

Point taken...but McCain hasnt "distanced himself from so many people that "change"...must mean a "change of address"

Hawk Believer
06-23-2008, 06:55 PM
I think this exchange demonstrates the futility of trying to attack candidates on the basis of statements of people who they were assosiated with at some point on their life. I am so much more interested in the candidates' own words and actions than I am by the proxy substitution of someone somewhere on the chain of six degrees of seperation.

Hawk Believer
06-23-2008, 07:02 PM
Point taken...but McCain hasnt "distanced himself from so many people that "change"...must mean a "change of address"

Off the top of my head I know that McCain has fired at least 5 top aides from his campaign because of potentially damaging lobbyist ties and disavowed a spiritual advisor over the past months.

I think that the Nixon years and the related investigations led to a new era of intensive journalistic and political operative vetting for big candidates. But I think the last decade is showing that trend is being extended to every person that can be connected to a candidate during their life. Such is life in the information age I guess.

Godfather
06-23-2008, 08:39 PM
Off the top of my head I know that McCain has fired at least 5 top aides from his campaign this year because of potentially damaging lobbyist ties and disavowed a spiritual advisor over the past months.

I think that the Nixon years and the related investigations led to a new era of intensive journalistic and political operative vetting for big candidates. But I think the last decade is showing that trend is being extended to every person that can be connected to a candidate during their life. Such is life in the information age I guess.

Yep, and it's getting ridiculous.

I'm not sure the controversial statement was even accurate. It might make people think about terrorism more, but it would also have happened on a Republican president's watch and undermined their advantage on the issue.

lamberts-lost-tooth
06-24-2008, 07:28 AM
I think this exchange demonstrates the futility of trying to attack candidates on the basis of statements of people who they were assosiated with at some point on their life. I am so much more interested in the candidates' own words and actions than I am by the proxy substitution of someone somewhere on the chain of six degrees of seperation.

Obama distances himself from Kevin Bacon
http/www.thispostiswhack.com

Atlanta Dan
06-24-2008, 07:28 AM
Neither of these camapigns gets Black's sort of statement out there by accident. It is the old game of having a surrogate say something while the candidate maintains plausible deniability.

Charles Black is a seasoned political operative. He throws chum in the water about McCain being a daddy figue around which the country should rally in times of a national security crisis and then McCain wrings his hands about "that has no place in this campaign."

It's like the judge telling the jury not to consider the statement of the witness after it has been made - you can't unring the bell and both camapigns know it.

Hawk Believer
06-24-2008, 08:11 AM
Obama distances himself from Kevin Bacon
http/www.thispostiswhack.com

:applaudit:
Thats funny stuff.

Counselor
06-24-2008, 08:21 AM
Obama distances himself from Kevin Bacon
http/www.thispostiswhack.com

It is futile----you can never get away from Kevin Bacon.

Mosca
06-24-2008, 08:46 AM
The whole thing is stupid, IMO. I'm not going to think any differently about McCain because of some idiot who works for him, and neither should anyone else. Same goes for Obama. Anyone with half a brain can see that 1) the aide's remark is appallingly callous, 2) it is probably true, 3) so what. People are callous all the time. Next.

revefsreleets
06-24-2008, 08:49 AM
The election is not going to be decided on this issue anyway. It'll be the A) Economy B) (Related but seperate) Gas prices C) War in Iraq then a bunch of "niche issues" that will divvy up the fence sitters.

lamberts-lost-tooth
06-24-2008, 09:15 AM
The election is not going to be decided on this issue anyway. It'll be the A) Economy B) (Related but seperate) Gas prices C) War in Iraq then a bunch of "niche issues" that will divvy up the fence sitters.

Bingo!!!

The original post wasnt meant to be informational...just another thinly-veiled attempt to persuade while pretending to be "undecided".

Jeremy
06-24-2008, 09:22 AM
Bingo!!!

The original post wasnt meant to be informational...just another thinly-veiled attempt to persuade while pretending to be "undecided".

Yup.....copying and pasting an article with no comments isn't informational.

:thumbsup:

lamberts-lost-tooth
06-24-2008, 09:32 AM
Yup.....copying and pasting an article with no comments isn't informational.

:thumbsup:


Try reading the whole post...it was about when ONE constantly takes the time to search for...copy..and paste negative articles about only one of the candidates...and PRETENDS to be undecided.

Did you happne to read what someone wrote in another thread about reading comprehension...I thought that was rather rude, didnt you?

Dino 6 Rings
06-24-2008, 09:35 AM
I understand Black's thinking in making that statement, but its 2004 thinking, not 2008 thinking. The Republicans are in charge of the whitehouse, and have, by any means necessary prevented another 911 on US Soil with their Homeland Security and their agressive crack down on Terrorists. However, if another attack were to happen, I believe it would benefit Obama, not McCain.

Obama's camp could turn around and point out "failed policies" and "failed protection" that lead to another attack.

Don't get me wrong, Black is incorrect in stating anything could would come from another attack on our soil, it would be bad for everyone in the US. Its a horrible thing to say. But politically, its the type of thing that some people were saying in 2004 about re-electing G Bush. However, now, the tides of politics have turned and the current admin and party would be blamed for any further attacks, not credited for being able to stop them.

McCain should fire this jackhole for saying something so out of whack and counter productive to a safer America. And also fire him for being incorrect in his assessment of the current political winds.

revefsreleets
06-24-2008, 09:36 AM
Your debate style is reminiscent of Sherman's "March to the Sea". But slash and burn doesn't work in polite and civil debate. It's just inflammatory.

Jeremy
06-24-2008, 09:37 AM
Try reading the whole post...it was about when ONE constantly takes the time to search for...copy..and paste negative articles about only one of the candidates...and PRETENDS to be undecided.

Did you happne to read what someone wrote in another thread about reading comprehension...I thought that was rather rude, didnt you?

It was an AP article.

lamberts-lost-tooth
06-24-2008, 09:41 AM
Your debate style is reminiscent of Sherman's "March to the Sea". But slash and burn doesn't work in polite and civil debate. It's just inflammatory.

I sincerly hope you dont think that Jeremy has ever been involved in a polite and civil debate.

lamberts-lost-tooth
06-24-2008, 09:42 AM
It was an AP article.

Again...I was talking about your intent.:doh:

Dino 6 Rings
06-24-2008, 09:46 AM
Your debate style is reminiscent of Sherman's "March to the Sea". But slash and burn doesn't work in polite and civil debate. It's just inflammatory.

you talking about my post?

revefsreleets
06-24-2008, 09:46 AM
you talking about my post?
Nope.

Dino 6 Rings
06-24-2008, 09:48 AM
Nope.

whew LOL

Thought you were picking on me :flap:

lamberts-lost-tooth
06-24-2008, 10:03 AM
I understand Black's thinking in making that statement, but its 2004 thinking, not 2008 thinking. The Republicans are in charge of the whitehouse, and have, by any means necessary prevented another 911 on US Soil with their Homeland Security and their agressive crack down on Terrorists. However, if another attack were to happen, I believe it would benefit Obama, not McCain.

Obama's camp could turn around and point out "failed policies" and "failed protection" that lead to another attack.

Don't get me wrong, Black is incorrect in stating anything could would come from another attack on our soil, it would be bad for everyone in the US. Its a horrible thing to say. But politically, its the type of thing that some people were saying in 2004 about re-electing G Bush. However, now, the tides of politics have turned and the current admin and party would be blamed for any further attacks, not credited for being able to stop them.

McCain should fire this jackhole for saying something so out of whack and counter productive to a safer America. And also fire him for being incorrect in his assessment of the current political winds.

I think Black is looking at post 9-11..and the very emotionally charged outcome. He is probably thinking that another attack would put the vast majority of Americans out of the percieved lackadaisical attitude towards terrorism.,,back into a percieved conservative mindset.

The way it is being slanted however is that he seems to be wistful for such a thing to happen...and that he would put political needs ahead of American casualties.

Whether you believe THAT to be true is going to be based on what side of the aisle you sit...but unfortunatley down the road...it will be referred to not as perception but as fact...by the left.

Jeremy
06-24-2008, 10:05 AM
Again...I was talking about your intent.:doh:

:hatsoff:

It must be great to know what everyone is thinking.

Jeremy
06-24-2008, 10:06 AM
Whether you believe THAT to be true is going to be based on what side of the aisle you sit...but unfortunatley down the road...it will be referred to not as perception but as fact...by the left.

Can we talk about the facts from the right?

lamberts-lost-tooth
06-24-2008, 10:08 AM
:hatsoff:

It must be great to know what everyone is thinking.

Some say I am a Saint!:wink02:

Dino 6 Rings
06-24-2008, 10:15 AM
I still say that it would "backfire" against the GOP if something horrible did happen like that. The Dems would just use it to say "see, they can't protect you and their policies lead to this event"

that could sway votes to the Democrats, unlike what Black is thinking. Just a theory I have.

lamberts-lost-tooth
06-24-2008, 10:17 AM
Can we talk about the facts from the right?

Regardless of your attempt to paint yourself as moderate and undecided...you are as far left as any on this board...its the poorly veiled deception that is more irritating then if you just came out and stated your true intent. It really is quite offensive that you think that we are all so blind or stupid to think for one second that you are the least bit "undecided".

I would love to debate the candidates with you...conservative vs. Liberal...right vs. left...but first you need to be a little less disingenuous.

Godfather
06-24-2008, 10:24 AM
It is futile----you can never get away from Kevin Bacon.

That works even better with Rod Steiger. There's a website called Oracle of Bacon that links actors in the fewest possible number of steps...there are about 100-200 who are more than six steps from Kevin Bacon.

Baseball-reference.com has a similar feature where you can link baseball players through their teammates.

Hawk Believer
06-24-2008, 10:26 AM
I still say that it would "backfire" against the GOP if something horrible did happen like that. The Dems would just use it to say "see, they can't protect you and their policies lead to this event"

that could sway votes to the Democrats, unlike what Black is thinking. Just a theory I have.

That reminds of the last election cycle and the anticipation of the "October Surprise." The Democratic strategy to try to insulate themselves from that card being played seemed to be to discuss the possibility extensively beforehand. Then if Bush suddenly produced Osama Bin Laden (or whatever the potential surprise could have been) a week before elections it may have appeared to be cravenly political. Alas, there was no Ocotber surprise.

Mosca
06-24-2008, 10:29 AM
Regardless of your attempt to paint yourself as moderate and undecided...you are as far left as any on this board...its the poorly veiled deception that is more irritating then if you just came out and stated your true intent. It really is quite offensive that you think that we are all so blind or stupid to think for one second that you are the least bit "undecided".

I would love to debate the candidates with you...conservative vs. Liberal...right vs. left...but first you need to be a little less disingenuous.

Oh, come on, LLT. Jeremy likes to argue. Nothing wrong with that, is there? He hasn't taken any personal shots at anyone has he?

I'd debate the candidates with ANYONE if I thought they had an open mind about the flaws (and virtues) of each. My estimation is that either of the two is about 25% qualified for the position he is applying for. I need to see more about the vice-presidential selection process, I need to see more about the performance under the pressure of the campaign. I'm not sold at all on either of them right now.

I'd give McCain points for disavowing his aide's statements, but standing by the man if he is in all other respects a worthwhile asset to his campaign. The man's only mistake was being impolitic, after all. There are misstatements that matter, and there are misstatements that don't, and this is one that doesn't matter.

Jeremy
06-24-2008, 10:35 AM
Regardless of your attempt to paint yourself as moderate and undecided...you are as far left as any on this board...its the poorly veiled deception that is more irritating then if you just came out and stated your true intent. It really is quite offensive that you think that we are all so blind or stupid to think for one second that you are the least bit "undecided".

I would love to debate the candidates with you...conservative vs. Liberal...right vs. left...but first you need to be a little less disingenuous.

:coffee:

SSDD

lamberts-lost-tooth
06-24-2008, 10:53 AM
:coffee:

SSDD

Welcome to the world of the rest of the forum:thumbsup: