McCain would be the perfect president.

[sealybobo]

McCain would be the perfect president. He is the gold standard.

Newsweek catches McCain in a serious contradiction

McCain specifically denied that he ever talked to Paxson's CEO, Lowell Paxson (or any other Paxson representative) about this matter:

Paxson Communications, a major McCain contributor and provider of jet travel, repeatedly requested that McCain intervene on its behalf with a pending FCC matter, and thereafter, McCain personally contacted the FCC to demand that it expedite its ruling on a matter of vital important to Paxson (a contact which prompted a "scolding response" from the FCC Chairman, who called McCain's letter on behalf of Paxon "highly unusual" and inappropriate).


But Newsweek's Mike Isikoff today obtained (or was given) the transcripts of deposition testimony which McCain himself gave under oath several years ago in litigation over the constitutionality of McCain-Feingold. In that testimony, McCain repeatedly and unequivocally stated the opposite of what he said in this week's NYT denial: namely, that he had unquestionably spoken with Paxson himself over the pending FCC matter:
"I was contacted by Mr. Paxson on this issue," McCain said in the Sept. 25, 2002, deposition obtained by NEWSWEEK. "He wanted their approval very bad for purposes of his business. I believe that Mr. Paxson had a legitimate complaint."

Newsweek catches McCain in a serious contradiction - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com

 

[jreeves]

Newsweek catches McCain in a serious contradiction

McCain specifically denied that he ever talked to Paxson's CEO, Lowell Paxson (or any other Paxson representative) about this matter:

Paxson Communications, a major McCain contributor and provider of jet travel, repeatedly requested that McCain intervene on its behalf with a pending FCC matter, and thereafter, McCain personally contacted the FCC to demand that it expedite its ruling on a matter of vital important to Paxson (a contact which prompted a "scolding response" from the FCC Chairman, who called McCain's letter on behalf of Paxon "highly unusual" and inappropriate).


But Newsweek's Mike Isikoff today obtained (or was given) the transcripts of deposition testimony which McCain himself gave under oath several years ago in litigation over the constitutionality of McCain-Feingold. In that testimony, McCain repeatedly and unequivocally stated the opposite of what he said in this week's NYT denial: namely, that he had unquestionably spoken with Paxson himself over the pending FCC matter:
"I was contacted by Mr. Paxson on this issue," McCain said in the Sept. 25, 2002, deposition obtained by NEWSWEEK. "He wanted their approval very bad for purposes of his business. I believe that Mr. Paxson had a legitimate complaint."

Newsweek catches McCain in a serious contradiction - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com

Wow, a leftist blog says Mccain contradicted himself? Tell me it's not so...

 

[newfnshow715]

i think he would be a bad president just just my opinion

 

[newfnshow715]

obama would be better

 

[jreeves]

obama would be better

That's nice...any reasons?

 

[Zoomie1980]

I do not need to predict anything to know what the effects of Obamas Tax policies and spending programs will be Midcan5. If you were not a completely partisan Liberal Democrat you would know that.

This race, as most, is not going to be decided by partisans and ideologues. It will be decided by about 7-10% of undecided, independents, who are looking to PRAGMATIC solutions to problems, not ideology.

Most Americans are NOT ideological at all. They are only interested in what effects their immediate lives, TODAY and RIGHT NOW. They just don't have time to worry about much else. So who is going to appeal to those folks the best? Whoever does, will win.

 

[editec]

This race, as most, is not going to be decided by partisans and ideologues. It will be decided by about 7-10% of undecided, independents, who are looking to PRAGMATIC solutions to problems, not ideology.

Probably right about that, but I'm not sure that the % are right on the money.

Most Americans are NOT ideological at all. They are only interested in what effects their immediate lives, TODAY and RIGHT NOW. They just don't have time to worry about much else. So who is going to appeal to those folks the best? Whoever does, will win.

I basically agree.

If the economy is bad, the party in office suffers, generally speaking.

However, if the economy is good, then those issues which I so often allude to as completely irrelevant and meaningless (like gun control or aborortion) become important to far too many voters.

THIS election, I think we will find the American people punishing the Republicans for the economy.

But if the economy doesn't improve?

Well then we can expect that those voters will seriously think about another change of party.