The only one who "smeared" McCain was Bush and that was in 2000. The media better knock off the lies and favortism that they are showing Obama.

Oh please.  Most of the MSM has been shown to be in the tank for McCain.  When he loses it will be because he's not what the peoplle want, not do some phantom media bias.  Get real.  All the conservatives can do is make excuses.

And I can't type.  (Where's that edit funtion?)

Sorry I meant McCain not Obama, I meant that McCain is the one favored.

Hi J , we know what you meant after all you were an Obama supporter last year and told me he would beat Hillary. I thought you were insane.

Oh.  Then in that case I emphatically agree with you!  Just don't make the same mistake in Novemeber! ;) LOL

Revised

The only one who "smeared" McCain was Bush and that was in 2000. The media better knock off the lies and favortism that they are showing McCain.

Parsons wrote: "Sen. John McCain fell victim to a whisper campaign in 2000 in South Carolina, where he lost to George W. Bush amid gossip that he had fathered a black child out of wedlock and that he was mentally unstable from his years as a POW during Vietnam. Now McCain quickly responds to attacks he thinks are personal. When Obama recently accused McCain of 'losing his bearings,' for instance, a senior aide dashed off a scathing memo accusing him of suggesting McCain, 71, was too old to be president

So in reading this even further it appears that some media type want to claim that Obama is resorting to the same tactics as Karl Rove did in 2000?

So in reading this even further it appears that some media type want to claim that Obama is resorting to the same tactics as Karl Rove did in 2000?

Yes , sadly.

Even more sadly that the media can be so dumb - Karl Rove is advising the McCain campaign!

Here is just another example of Republicans projecting one of their biggest weaknesses onto the Democrats.

It sounds like they are going to do the whole "Sean Hannity great Americans persecuted by liberal Democrats" thing.

Yeah, except that (assuming Sen Obama was even doing it) Johnny Mac actually is old.  Rove never felt constrained to make his smears conform to the truth.

I agree with MMFA here, this was not a smear against McCain's age by Obama, in full context it was quite clear what he was referring too.  The media outlets not reporting Obama's response most definitely should.

But I would imagine many here, by their own admissions on previous threads, feel that going after McCain's age is fair game and not an "attack" at all, as MMFA agrees that it is.

But I would imagine many here, by their own admissions on previous threads, feel that going after McCain's age is fair game and not an "attack" at all, as MMFA agrees that it is.

It is not fair game, unless its calling him Gramps? that seems to be ok. Its harmless. he is a grandfatherly figure.

McCain's age is fair game and not an "attack" at all...

That's because it's TRUE! 

Then take it up with MMFA, they obviously disagree.

"Then take it up with MMFA, they obviously disagree"

They do?  What leads you to that conclusion?  Just because they don't think Obama should be falsely accused of doing that doesn't mean they object to someone ACTUALLY doing that.

Because if you think something is A-OK, then you don't complain.  

If I thought you were falsely accused of helping little old ladies across the street, and I liked you, I certainly wouldn't complain if someone said it about you. 

They're not complaining about the "something."

They're complaining about wrongly accusing someone of doing the "something."

It's the reporting that's at fault. Not the action. 

So if it was reported that you helped little old ladies across the street and it wasn't true, I should be mad at the reporting of it? Makes no sense.

"So if it was reported that you helped little old ladies across the street and it wasn't true, I should be mad at the reporting of it? Makes no sense." - Tommy

Tommy, if in fact it was an action that wasn't performed, the reporting is false and is worth chastising.  It matters not in the slightest whether you thought the action which was erroneously said to occur struck you as a kindly one.  It was bad reporting.

Though that in itself should be sufficient, actions themselves may not be what they seem.  Do the LOLs *want* to cross the street?

To push the hypothetical a bit, what if on the far side of the street LOLs were being mugged in the park?  What if it was being reported, "Even though they were sobbing the entire time, Deeznuts was helping little old ladies cross the street where his accomplice, Tommy, was waiting to mug them"?  (And in reality, the two of you were sharing a brew at Rabbitluvr's Hutch.)

Bad reporting is bad reporting.

"So if it was reported that you helped little old ladies across the street and it wasn't true, I should be mad at the reporting of it? Makes no sense"

So...you'd be OK with the reporting of lies, I take it?  A report that lies is a report that lies.  It doesn't matter if the lie is "favorable" or not.  TRUTH is what matters.  If a lie is reported instead, then the TRUTH has been hidden.

This conversation is a little odd.  First, using "helping little old ladies cross the street" as a comparison seems off, since you're just talking about something considered to be acceptable, not positive in a going-out-of-your-way manner.

"Attack" is a characterization from Parsons, not MMfA.  They're not judging whether such comments about McCain's age would constitute an "attack" or not, so I see no basis for declaring their position one way or the other there.  Besides, doesn't it make a difference how this issue is raised?  Reagan was confused, so age can be considered to have an effect on performance.  That's a valid concern.   But if Obama was just going around cracking jokes about McCain's age when there's no basis for any related concerns, that would be a personal attack.

It's sort of besides the point of the article, since either way Parsons' work is faulty for reasons you've explicitly agreed with. 

Either you consider going after McCain's age is acceptable or not, I made no qualifiers either way.  I made no mention of job performance.

I know you didn't mention performance.  It's relevant to whether it's a personal attack or not, though, so it's not as "either/or" as you are claiming.

I don't see how MMfA's lack of commentary on this matter constitutes "agreement" with anything Parsons wrote, even implicitly.

Yes it is.  Criticizing performance is criticizing performance, I don't consider age a factor in it, perhaps you do, I don't.

Well, if he became completely confused during a speech I think the conversation would be about his age, don't you?  That wouldn't be an attack.

Unless there is some medically/age linked condition to his confusion then it could be a number of things, perhaps he just doesn't know his stuff, then which criticism is valid.  People in their 40s get confused, it isn't necessarily age related. 

I already used Reagan as an example.  Reagan was confused about details of his own life.  It very clearly turned out to be age-related.

In any event, acknowledging that a situation exists where such commentary would be justified proves the point.  That situation demonstrates that commentary about age is not either always acceptable or always unacceptable.  It's conditional. 

To me, it's acceptable only when it's directly attributable to age, which is pretty hard to prove I would suppose, as in dementia symptoms.  Outside of that, I cannot see that it is fair to blame it on age where gaffes or stumbles or even confusions are concerned, considering there is a myriad of reasons for those errors.

All in all, I think going after McCain on those issues is fair game, just not in the context of age, treat him and his goofs like he were 41 instead of 71, where there would be no mention of age. 

That's a nice sentiment, but why pretend a situation is different than how it really is?  If he was 41 then it couldn't possibly be attributable to age...but he isn't actually 41.  The age makes that explanation plausible and a legitimate consideration to take into account.  If Cheney was running, you could just as easily say that if he was much younger that he could recover from health concerns more quickly.  But he isn't, so it makes his health problems more likely to be a serious issue.

Now you're introducing health issues into it, I never mentioned that either.  I am speaking about age on it's own, the mere fact that he is 71 should have no bearing on any criticism if there is no age-attributable reasons to do so. 

Ill health is ill health, and that may or may not be age related. I am talking about attacking him because of his age with no sufficient evidence to back it up, except for it's own sake.

Maybe we are on different wavelengths here, I just think age is not a valid criticism when his age is not directly linked to what the criticism is about......as in "Well, he is confused, it's his age", that is unfair unless there is evidence otherwise suggesting his confusion is specifically age-related.  We don't know. 

Maybe we are on different wavelengths here, I just think age is not a valid criticism...

Then what it a valid criticism?  His policies?  You can't say he lost his bearings on policy matters without the corporate media spinning that into a criticism of his age. Gramps is getting a free pass on the age issue.  Heck, he doesn't even know the difference between Shia and Sunni. 

I have already said this is an error on the part of those in the media regarding Obama's intent here, I don't believe it was age related either.  

"Gramps is getting a free pass on the age issue". Meaning what?, that statement in and of itself is ridiculous.

that statement in and of itself is ridiculous.

In what way?

The media never brings up his age.  Our last senior citizen president had dementia.  His medical records fiasco was a 1-2 day story.  I really shouldn't care because in a reality-based world, McMaverick would have no chance.  But after 2000 and 2004, anything is sadly possible.

Yes, I know you didn't talk about health either, that's exactly why your either/or scenario is invalid.  The whole point is that you can't conclude that MMfA agrees that any comment about age is an attack when you've admitted that both physical and mental health issues might be age-related.  If Obama really was talking about McCain's facilities when he was talking about him losing his bearings, that's a valid concern.  That wouldn't be talking about his age just by itself.

So there's no reasonable way to conclude that MMfA agrees such a comment would be an attack, even if they were viewing it through your particular mindset. 

Tommy apparently doesn't get overtime, so it's unlikely you'll get a reply, but I gotta say that you regularly do a great job rebutting his attempts to make points.

No, but you've stated that MMfA is against attacking McGramps about his age.  There is no basis in fact for that assertion.  This thread is not about Presidential candidate Depends being attacked about his age, this thread is about Senator Obama being criticized for an attack he hasn't done.

But that's typical for you, building straw men.

"McGramps".   "Presidential candidate Depends"

And typical of you. You offer nothing but silly attacks.

No, Tommy, very clear points were made, with "Gramps" and "depends" thrown in as embellishments.Take them or leave them, but don't turn into AnotherAmerican, a little levity does not override the entire post. You're smarter than that.

They are 2 different issues. Distorting Obama's words verses the fact that McCain would be well over 80 after 2 terms.

Whether it's fair game or not, I don't think it's necessary for an Obama victory.

100% agreement.

You may be right Pete, making an issue of McGramp's age may not be needed. But, just to be on the safe side, I will be mocking his age, robo 2nd wife, 8 houses etc. Please feel free to take the high road, we need warriors up there also. But, the other side will be making every aspersion they can dream up, so someone has to fight back in a similar fashion.

And you are entitled to feel that way, the rightwing is undoubtedly vicious in its attacks, that is undeniable.

But then I would hope to see you here standing up for slime and swear campaigning, all's fair in love and politics type thing, when MMFA, or anyone calls an attack on Obama unfair.  You should say bring it on. 

I've wrestled with this issue before, but I don't feel anyone "has to fight back in a similar fashion".  I understand the impulse, but all it does is lead people to believe that both parties are the same.  It undermines legitimate complaints from the left because then opponents can legitimately point to poor behavior.  Then it's "well both sides do it" and even if one side is nastier than the other that moral equivalence becomes a matter of strongly-rooted conventional wisdom.  In the future there might be an older candidate running for the Dem side, and Dems complaining about age jokes would be quickly reminded of what was said about McCain.  It doesn't matter if said candidate is as sharp as a tack and completely consistent in his positions, the two situations become equivalent.

If Bush was caught lying about an affair, would it be fair to impeach him for it?  Sure.  Would it be amusing to watch conservatives set new records of hypocrisy criticizing said impeachment?  Hell yes.  But I would be disgusted at the act since it is the same political BS as what happened with Clinton.  I don't want petty games in our governmental processes.  I don't want dishonest blowhards on left-wing radio.  I want an elevated discourse.  We can talk about religion in the public square, preemptive war, human rights, social balance and justice, and we can win those debates.  Leave the BS tactics for people who have no arguments to back up their positions.  An impartial observer can interpret low-road tactics as a sign that those people don't have anywhere else to go, and that applies even if you can behave better than you actually do.

Terrific sentiment.

You are here too infrequently.

Thanks for both your posts!  When my local area recovers from its flood disaster I might have a little more time.

McCain's poor memory, loose associations, and confusion about basic issues (Suni vs. Shiite) SHOULD be an issue, even if he were 25.

Kind of like "57 states" and stuttering during unrehearsed Q & As?

This is a copy-and-paste of a post I did this morning on one of yesterday's threads.

I don't believe he had McCain's age in mind at all.  This is the full context of the statement:

This is offensive, and I think it's disappointing. Because John McCain always says ‘I am not going to run that kind of politics,’ and to engage in that kind of smear is unfortunate, particularly because my policy toward Hamas has been no different than his.

I’ve said it’s a terrorist organization and we should not negotiate with them unless they recognize Israel, renounce violence, and unless they are willing to abide by previous accords between the Palestinians and the Israelis. So for him to toss out comments like that I think is an example of him losing his bearings as he pursues this nomination. We don’t need name calling in this debate.

It is perfectly obvious to me that Obama is referring to McCain losing his moral, ethical, principle bearings.  Obama set it up in the first part where he refers to McCain's words and then points out how his actions contrast with those words.  I think it's a logical stretch to believe that he was referring to age.

And, why wouldn't age be a valid factor in determining qualification to hold the highest office in this country?  I believe you can be as young as 35 to run for Pres.  But, that doesn't mean you have the expertise or background to get elected.  At the same time, if you're deemed too old to be an effective leader and maintain the pace and work hours the position demands, would not that be an equal disqualifier? 

I certainly believe that age could be a legitimate factor in assessing a candidate.  I was just pointing out that the evidence doesn't support the charge that Obama was referring to age.

As a matter of fact, age is my biggest problem with Obama.  I'm not emotionally ready for a President who's younger than me!!!

 

When your opponent is being petty and childish, and over-reacting hysterically: and if it's a political campaign we're talking about... then it's just a fine thing to needle and goad your opponent. It might seem malicious, but it's not: it's not even mischievious... it just highlights the petty and childish quality in your opponent: that's a good and necessary thing in a political campaign.

Not so much Mr. Obama, but folks in his campaign, they should say again that "John McCain is losing or has lost, his bearings"... say it again and again: make it into a bumper sticker even: have it printed on posters, and exhibit those posters in public, in windows and atop sticks held by people at rallies and at the convention...

John McCain Is Losing Or Has Lost His Bearings!

I love it! I love it because it's true!

And if the idiots in the McCain campaign want to over-react, and make the childish and petty claim that it refers to Mr. McCain's advanced and great age, then great... because all the dopes will be (and are) doing, is drawing attention to something they shouldn't draw attention to, and that's a good and successful tactic in political campaigns, not a malicious or even mischievious thing: make your opponent expose his own weaknesses, often.

 

Personally, I think he's off his rocker. But for the sake of argument, let's say that McCain isn't losing his bearings. That could only possibly mean one thing:

Oh, there's certainly no doubt about that.

Nearly every issue. Torture to immigration. Wiretapping to lobbyists. Based on the (*ahem*) logic that was applied to Kerry in 2004, McCain is KING Flopper.

I think McCain has difficulty remembering what position he took the day before so you can't really accuse him of flip-flopping.

The "buzz" words used by the Obama campaign and its surrogates are meant to refer to McCain's age. The fact they repeatedly deny they used them for that purpose further promotes their use, as we have seen by some of the Obama supporters. The Obama supporters were outraged by the subtle but true statement that President Johnson pushed through the Civil Rights legislation and Voters Rights Act. They attacked Clinton for disparaging Martin Luther King's memory a week before South Carolina. Politicians are under the microscope these days. Their words are chosen carefully. With everybody and his mother having a blog such words are chosen for the context they are meant for. The fact that the words that are used are often related to and reference elderly individuals is also hard to deny. That are repeated more than once and several times by various Obama surrogates including himself is also telling. There is no need for Obama to go this route.

Anybody else hear that Tim Russert passed away today?

Yes, about five minutes ago.

Condolences to family and friends. Didn't watch him much, nobody mentioned that he looked less than healthy. Something sudden?

He was in Italy last week celebrating his son's graduation. He supposedly passed a stress test not too long ago.

I expect a long airplane trip caused a clot to develop and moved to his heart. CPR did no good whatsoever. KO said it was a coronary thrombosis. That's a clot, and those deep vein clots often come after sitting on a plane for too long without moving around. Those clots loosen after a few hours or a few days and are silent killers.

I disagree with the notion that the media doesn't address McCain's age. They talk about it very frequently, in fact.

And as for believing that Obama and his camp let loose those "code words" that were meant to indicate that McCain is an old guy who can't remember what he ate for breakfast seems pretty realistic. These guys are politicians, Dems and Reps alike and they make these subtle, insidious remarks in order to undermine eachother.

Obama has run a campaign like Bush. He's got talking points, his team is very disciplined and they move very quickly. If anyone has received a pass from the "liberal media", it's Obama....is he expecting to get a pass fromt he right wing media as well (FOX and some shows on CNN)?