General Question

SquirrelEStuff's avatar

What did you think of John McCain's speech?

Asked by SquirrelEStuff (9171points) September 5th, 2008 from iPhone

How many Dems watched the whole thing? Who’s relying on media coverage only?

After hearing his speech, which was an excellent speech, I only wish I could trust him to do as he says, but he has sold out to the Bush administration. I think he is completely intimidated by this war on terror and is still willing to sacrifice Americans rights to “catch terrorists.” Is it possible that the war on terror and the possible wars with Iran and Russia has put him in an aggressive state of mind? He can’t be 100% stable after going through everything he has gone through.
Screw drilling also. If we stopped these wars, demand would go way down because the Pentagon uses a crap load of oil on these wars. How does he expect to win all these wars without going bankrupt like Russia did during the cold war?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

45 Answers

generalspecific's avatar

honestly, i wish i could trust any politician.

BonusQuestion's avatar

He was distancing himself from George Bush. He even did not name him. When talking about Bush Jr and Sr he said “The President”. The only one who he named was Laura Bush who is a popular figure.

With a radical conservative on the ticket he pretty much convinced conservatives. It is now time for him to convince moderate Democrat and Independents.

The funny part was when he even distanced himself from his own party and said “I don’t work for a party…I work for you”!!

Honestly I was not impressed by his speech but then I am a liberal…

EmpressPixie's avatar

I’ve been relying on to liveblog all the convention speeches. It’s waaaaay more entertaining than actually watching them. (Though I did pop onto the Internet to watch a bit of Palin’s speech.)

I’ve also been reading a lot of media reports from different sources. I just don’t like watching online very much and am currently cable-less. I’d rather read the speeches and the reporting on them.

Bri_L's avatar

@ geralspecific – I agree

PupnTaco's avatar

Nauseating, robotic, and pandering.

Adina1968's avatar

He put me to sleep. :-)
Seriously though, the Republican party has become very scary.
If John McCain doesn’t work for a party then why is he running as a Republican and not an Independant? Hmmmmm? I wonder…

El_Cadejo's avatar

I thought it was a horrible speech. He rambled on a lot, didnt really say anything, and told plenty of obvious lies. Also wtf was with the winking? wink wink wink wink wink ;)

gailcalled's avatar

Uber; so nice to hear from you (feeling better?) Maybe the winking was due to some nerve damage caused by the four melanoma surgeries. If so, I am sorry for him. I know several people with odd nerve damage caused by face and neck surgeries.

El_Cadejo's avatar

maybe, but did you know McCain was a POW. Did you hear he was a POW in Vietnam. Yup Prisoner of War. McCain he was a POW. He was even given the chance to go home, and he said no. Did you know that? Did i mention he was a POW? In case you didnt hear it the first 80 thousand times he said it, he was a POW.

EmpressPixie's avatar

@uberbatman: McCain was a POW? Really? Are you sure? I wouldn’t want you spreading rumors like that unless you were sure. I mean, he’s admitted it once or twice in an interview or something right?

PupnTaco's avatar

This says it all.

dalepetrie's avatar

I listened to the whole thing on the radio, so I missed a bit in the facial expressions. But my impression as a liberal is that if only he really meant the things he said, if only his ideas weren’t the same ideas that have screwed up this country for 30 years, if only the change he promises in his speech were actually reflected in his policies, I’d vote for this man in a heartbeat.

I have to respect him for not stooping to the level of Wednesday night’s speakers, I appreciate that he didn’t just come out and hurl a bunch of unsupported vitriol at Obama the way Palin and Romney and Huckabee and 9ui11iani did, I appreciate his call to service. But I found it to be just more hypocritical claptrap…you can’t have your entire party which you ostensibly control as the nominee come out one night and mock people for being community servants and then seriously expect us to believe that you have a deep respect for community service the very next night. You can’t have your party throw unsubstantiated personality based attack after unsubstantiated personality based attack on Wednesday night and then come out and Thursday and expect me to believe it when you try to “rise above it”. And just saying that you’re different, doesn’t friggin’ make you different.

And yes, my Warshington friend, I get that you survived something horrific nearly 4 decades ago, I get that you behaved honorably, I get that you love your country. But I don’t see how that makes you the best person to lead our country. I thought it was defintely a speech designed to reach out to the independents…I just don’t know if they’ll buy it after Wednesday’s speeches. All along I’ve said, he needs to be two people to win…he needs to be conservative enough to energize the base, but he needs to retain his maverick image. Wednesday was about goal #1, Thursday was about goal #2…I simply hope that the unwashed masses are not stupid enough to believe he can be both things. But I’ve underestimated the stupdity of America before…

So all in all, it was a good, pandering speech that didn’t damage his cred with his base, but did offer an albeit weak olive branch to the low info independent voter. I can only hope it won’t be enough.

dalepetrie's avatar

Sweet post PupnTaco, luvre for you

AstroChuck's avatar

A mavrick as presdent. Wow!
Maybe that delegate knows how babby formed.

El_Cadejo's avatar

Is it bad i think of top gun every time i hear maverick?

allengreen's avatar

Can someone tell me if bombing civilians from 5,000 ft, makes McCain a Hero? By that logic Bush would be a super hero—he is responsible for how many hundred of thousand civilian deaths?

dalepetrie's avatar

Well, Palin can certainly authorize shooting 1 month old wolf cubs from a helicopter, so if that is a qualification for hero, I guess they have 2 on the ticket!

cwilbur's avatar

The thing that made me lose all respect for McCain: indeed, he was a POW. So how does he justify his position on the US’s use of torture?

dalepetrie's avatar



janbb's avatar

I am a liberal also, and deifnitely pro-Obama all the way; however, I used to respect McCain as well. To me, his backing away from most of his principles before and during the campaign and then his choice of a rightwing, extremely ant-environmental fundamentalist candidate as his vice-presidential nominee completely erases any pretense on his part to be different from the Republicans who are in power. How they could run a convention distancing themselves from Washington and its ills, when they have been the party in power for 8 years is totally beyond me.

I shudder to think what will happen to our country and to our standing in the world if he and Palin win.

cheebdragon's avatar

I still don’t see how he sold out to the bush administration…....

dalepetrie's avatar

How McCain sold out to the Bush Administration…

#1 – Called Bush’s tax cuts reckless and irresponsible. Did not support them for a very long time. Did not support the second package of tax cuts. Until he began running for President, and stated that he would make Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthiest 1% of Americans permanent.

#2 – Became a fierce critic of the war in Iraq in the 2005/2006 timeframe, until he started to run for President and made it clear that he now thought the surge was working and it was alright by him if we stayed there for 100 years.

#3 – Went from a consistent position on abortion that it should be a state’s rights issue to the statement when he began running for President that he’d support the Bush model for appointing Supreme Court justices and would like to see Roe v. Wade overturned.

#4 – Went from being the Senate’s most respected and listened to person on the topic of torture, having been tortured himself, it actually meant something when he said, “we’re America, we don’t torture,” until he began running for President when he reversed his position on waterboarding saying it wasn’t torture after all and that he supports Bush’s interrogation techniques.

And of course there’s the fact that when he hasn’t been running for President, he has voted with Bush as infrequently (for a Republican) as 77% of the time. Since he started running for President, that number increased dramatically, to 95% last year, and 100% so far this year.

This isn’t even a kind of comprehensive list of how he’s like Bush, and barely scratches the surface of the issues on which he has flip flopped (something that doesn’t seem to bother Republican’s when THEIR candidate does it).

Here’s a site dedicated to chronicling his flip flops:

Yeah, this guy, the one who said, “the only cure for Presidential ambition is embalming fluid,” he’s a straight shooter who would never DREAM of shifting his positions (or picking a running mate) just to suck up to the far right wing/Bush wing of the party.

AstroChuck's avatar

@cwilbur- I am by no means a McCain supporter but I feel I have to set one thing straight.
McCain has been steadfast in his objection of our countriy’s use of waterboarding and other means of torture.

dalepetrie's avatar

Actually AstroChuck, in February, McCain stood with the Republicans and voted no on a bill that would have banned waterboarding, the measure passed 51 to 45 but was vetoed by Bush.

AstroChuck's avatar

Then I stand corrected. By selling out his convictions he just gives the dems more ammo against the GOP, which is good in my book.

cheebdragon's avatar

oh I forgot Obama has such a clean record…....~

Bri_L's avatar

@ cheebdragon – you seem to really dislike Obama but I can’t find any specifics in any thread from you. May I ask why you don’t care for him?

dalepetrie's avatar

I have to agree Bri L, I have yet to hear anything substantive from Cheeb about why she dislikes Obama. Not that it would matter, as I’ve tended to find that all the anti-Obama Republican talking points are easily dispelled distortions. I’m not really sure why Republicans can’t just say, OK, I don’t like Obama because I believe that by giving tax breaks to business we stimulate economic growth, and by giving them to individuals we support a welfare state. OK, I disagree vehemently with that philosophy but if it’s what you believe, great, I can argue philosophy with you, but I’ll concede its’ a fair argument and you have to vote your conscience. But when you have to distort someone’s record, that’s just not fair play. So yes, I would LOVE to have the opportunity to know what is so imperfect about Obama’s record that would rise to the level of McCain selling his soul to the right wing. Since I’m pretty familiar with his record and have done my research, I’ll know if it’s a bullshit Republican talking point or a fair and legitimate argument.

EmpressPixie's avatar

@Dale, I thought the purpose of Roe v. Wade was to take abortion out of being a states rights issue and make it a national government issue. Ergo, supporting “abortion as a states right” is the same as supporting the overturn of Roe v. Wade. Where am I going wrong?

cheebdragon's avatar

“Unfortunately, a close inspection of Obama’s proposals reveals something disquieting: he would raise marginal tax rates for many middle-income taxpayers, a bad move for anyone seeking to promote economic growth.

Although Obama is offering a new series of tax breaks, they undermine rather than improve economic incentives.The solid line in the nearby chart illustrates the effective marginal tax rate under Obama’s tax proposals (based on the authoritative “Preliminary Analysis of the 2008 Presidential Candidates’ Tax Plans,” published by the Brookings Institution/Urban Institute’s Tax Policy Center). These are the marginal rates in 2009 for a two-earner couple with two children—a college freshman and a 12-year-old receiving after-school care—under some specific assumptions. For comparison, the dotted line on the chart illustrates the effective tax rates under current law. The rates shown in the chart are not spelled out in the tax code; they are the result of giving and taking away tax breaks as the household’s income changes.

As the chart shows, Obama’s give-and-take tax policy results in marginal tax rates of 34 percent to 39 percent in the $31,000 to $45,000 income range for this family. That’s an increase of 13 percentage points or more from the current rates.

What accounts for the higher rates? First, Obama expands the maximum child and dependent care credit for families with one young child from $1,050 to $1,500 and phases down the credit over a longer income range, from $30,000 to $58,000. Throughout this income range, the credit is phasing out at a rate of $30 per $1,000 of income, thus raising the effective tax rate by 3 percentage points. Obama also makes certain credits refundable, which introduces a tax penalty of 10 percent or 15 percent, depending on the income bracket.

While Obama has publicly embraced a tax rate of 40 percent for couples earning over $350,000, his tax policies would result in a staggering 45 percent effective marginal rate in the $110,000 to $120,000 income range for this family. That is 11 percentage points higher than under current law.

The culprit in this case is Obama’s proposed reform of the Hope Scholarship Tax Credit for college tuition, which he would rename the “American Opportunity Tax Credit.” He would increase the credit’s maximum value from $1,800 to $4,000 while still phasing out the credit over the same income range, $100,000 to $120,000. The larger phase-out would boost the penalty on work from 9 percentage points to 20 percentage points.
While both candidates will reduce their tax plans to clever sound bites, voters should consider how those plans would affect incentives to earn income. Unfortunately, Senator Obama’s proposed “tax cuts for the middle class” are actually marginal rate hikes in disguise.” -The American

Here is another interesting source with lots of information…...

Response moderated
Bri_L's avatar

@ Cheebdragon – thanks for taking the time. Now I have some numbers to crunch back and forth.

I am at the point after 20 years of bs from presidents of just thinking if any of them say the word “taxes” thinking they are flapping lip.

AstroChuck's avatar

I’m often amazed at how the word taxes invokes such ire in a country who’s citizens hardly pay any compared to the rest of the developed world.

Bri_L's avatar

@ AstroChuck – it isn’t that I have a problem with them. It is just that the candidates put so much weight on using them and making promises with them and claims against each other when in the end so little ends up being done.

I know they are necessary and all.

The only real problem I have is how the government uses them. The accountability factor for how they are used is very little. I just want the taxes we do pay to go to the right stuff. Not A1 club seating for congressmen, vacation spots, fancy cars, private planes blah blah blah.

dalepetrie's avatar

I’m not sure why I can’t get the links to work, but I too will crunch these #‘s myself if and when I can get access to the link (all three links say they’re not available, I’ll try w/ a different browser). My first thought however is that this is from the Brookings Institute, a conservative think tank, so it’s hard to take this at face value w/o looking at the #‘s and the sources for some of their claims (there are several things here which are not detailed in Obama’s position papers, and it’s easy to make an assumption along the lines of “he’ll change credit x from refundable to non-refundable” but I’m personally not sure he’s even released that level of detail. Maybe, I’ll conduct my own sniff test and let you know what I find.

cheebdragon's avatar and, if you feel they are not good enough sources, I have several other sources I’d be happy to direct you to…....

dalepetrie's avatar

No, no….I’ll look at the sources you’ve provided, I just need to actually look at them. Apparently I can get there on Firefox but not Chrome, so I’ll check it out and if necessary crunch some #‘s (I’m an accountant by trade, I can figure this out). I suspect there’s something being obscured here that is not obvious, but like I said, maybe not.

cheebdragon's avatar

I cut out 2–3 paragraphs because of length and reference to the chart that I couldn’t show the pic of directly.

dalepetrie's avatar

I’ve spotted problem #1 already in the first 60 seconds….

Second, Obama would make some credits refundable for families with credits bigger than their tax liability, which would also have the nefarious effect of raising marginal tax rates. For example, consider a worker in the 10 percent bracket with $1,000 of tax liability before credits who claims $1,200 in credits. The tax impact of earning an extra $100 depends on whether the credit is refundable. If it’s not refundable, there’s no tax penalty on earning the extra $100 because the worker’s tax liability stays at zero. But if the credit is refundable, earning the extra money pushes the tax up from negative $200 to negative $190—that’s a 10 percent penalty on earning income.

This is complete and total bullshit, pardon my French.

Let’s assume a 10% tax rate, and $10,000 in income. That’s a tax liability of $1,000 per the example above, OK?

Now, if you have a tax credit for $1,200, changing it from non-refundable to refundable is a GOOD thing, not a bad thing as this article would have you believe. Because refundable means, even if your tax liability (in this case $1,000) is smaller than your tax credit, you get the full credit. So, you would actually get a $200 refund in this example if you had a refundable tax credit, if it were non-refundable, you would get NO refund and would lose that $200. So, to say that you’d be penalized by earning that extra money is ludicrous. Let’s say you earn another $1,000, now your income is $11,000 and your tax liability is $1,100. With a refundable tax credit, you’d still get $100 back, with a non refundable credit, you would get nothing back. What this article is trying to do is to say that because the amount you get back would be smaller in one example and not in the other completely glosses over the fact that in the non-refundable example, you get a lot less money back either way. Calling a change in a tax credit from refundable to non-refundable a bad thing is an outright distortion.

I’ll see what other tricks they did….

dalepetrie's avatar

OK, it’s clear to me now what they’re doing having seen the whole article. They’re trying to build the argument that by phasing out tax credits and making them refundable, the marginal tax rate on earned income becomes higher at higher levels of earned income. Duh! That’s the whole point of a tax credit. We’re talking about you getting a lower marginal credit rate as your income goes up. But the way they present it make sit look like you are actually paying MORE in taxes, but really in many cases, you are paying less taxes just not as much less from point b to c as from point a to b. It’s VERY misleading. They’re telling you that they’re saying one thing, but they’re really not. What they want you to think they’re telling you is that taxes will go up on the middle class under Obama’s plan, but that’s not true. It’s kind of like saying if you make $30 grand, and you pay $500 in taxes under the current rates, but would only pay $400 under Obama’s plan, but the marginal rate goes up more quickly on incomes between 28k and 29k than it does on incomes between 24k and 25k, then that’s really an increase. No it isn’t, you have $100 more in your pocket.

Bri_L's avatar

wholly schmolly

how is someone like me supposed to understand all that without you guys. For every one of me there has to be 100,000 out there who don’t know.

AstroChuck's avatar

@Bri L- I was t directing my comment on you. Just a general remark on we Americans, that’s all.

Bri_L's avatar

@ AstroChuck – Oh, no worries buddy, strictly conversational.

It really got me thinking because your right. So much of what we in america are used to as the norm is overboard compared to the lifestyle of most of the world.

thats all. I didn’t take it personally.

butt face. :-)

dalepetrie's avatar

That’s exactly the point, Bri L….you have conservative think tanks like the Brookings Institute which have some damn smart people who can find a language and math trick that allows them to say something which sounds really bad and which is actually true (depending on how you look at it). They figure for every person who looks at their numbers and says, “this is a big pile of crap” there are like you said 100,000 who look at it and say, “oh my God, he’s lying to us!”

Trustinglife's avatar

@Dale, I really appreciate your taking a close look at that and crunching those #s.

@Cheeb, any response? Why else don’t you like Obama? And thanks for being willing to express yourself in this predominantly liberal environment.

Answer this question




to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther