McCain's Hispanic Meltdown: "you people made your choice..."

Oh please do; because your analysis is fascinating!

 

Not really surprised by this. McCain has been touted as being a rich ******* for years. He puts on a different act in front of the camera though.

 

It is clear that you never really listened to Obama in the first place.

Throughout the whole campaign, and even before hand he was saying he would focus more troops, effort and money into Afghanistan.

In case you missed it, he also has put forward a plan to bring almost all the troops back from Iraq. Furthermore, he's denounced torture, put someone in place who knows that waterboarding is torture, is closing gitmo, changed Bush's policy on torture, has manage to garner foreign nations support in his plans for Afghanistan, and has provided a more transparent government etc. He's helped cut taxes for most of the people in the nation, is able to articulate his ideas, holds town halls without screening the questions, appointed qualified people to science positions, etc.

There is a ton that he's done. Most of the complaints you've made have nothing to do with actual promises Obama spoke of.

 

True; but so were Pythagoras, and Knute Rockne.

 

George W Bush was a graduate of Yale and Harvard. Did the liberals consider him to be smart? He is by your definition.

Obama no doubt benefitted from his african american status in gaining admission to Columbia and Harvard. In the case of Harvard, he also benefitted from some very powerful muslim figures writing letters of recommendation. So he had a lot of help here. Second, Obama wasn't a full time, tenure-track professor at Chicago. He was a part time senior lecturer. Given the loons that now run the U of Chicago, this doesn't tell me squat.

Next...

 

He is not a great speaker. Why do people still say this?

He totally sucks at speech. Did you see his speech in France at the big sports arena? He had 10 second pauses in the middle of his "umms".

If you want a great speaker check out Al Sharpton.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/2SBFREiCkf8&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/2SBFREiCkf8&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

 

He is not a great speaker -- I agree. He is a great narrator, which is different. He is good at reading words, typically off a teleprompter. He is NOT good at thinking on the fly during a speech. The sheeple are so gullible that they think that 1) Obama wrote the words and 2) He is intelligent because he can read words in a convincing tone of voice. Silly sheeple.

 

Al Sharpton is horrible. He speaks in a 19th Century rhetorical style.

I watched the Q&A with reporter today at the NATO summit. He is a good speaker because he "connects" with his listeners. It is a much more modern and intimate speaking style. It is especially suited television and Jumbotrons.

There are some elements that are 'speaking technique' and personality rather than substance of speech. But the actual substance beneath that technique is very orderly and clear as well. He did very well today at the NATO Q&A without a teleprompter. He even did very well with regard to hostile questioners, like Major Garrett.

The Republicans have yet to bring anybody like that. In fact, most of the thoughtful Republican deconstructions center their complaints on his violations of lèse majesté. This is just a difference of opinion. I don't want a 'royal President' and I don't think most Americans do either. But for some reason some of the core Republican elements instinctively think we should have one.

 

If somebody tried to show you some places where you were wrong above, would you listen with an open mind and consider admitting to exaggeration or just being unaware of some information related to your complaints?

 

Bingo. The issues didn't matter to these voter groups -- it was all emotion and groupthink/herd mentality.

 

Q&A is not a speech. A speech is much different. I can do Q&A great when I do presentations. I love it when someone asks a question, such a pressure release.

 

Sorry if I can't go all conspiracy theory with you. There are just as many who would say the same about the Bush administration, and they'd throw all kinds of things up as "proof," right or wrong.

Can't disagree with you here.

Well....duh. Dems have always been the party for those groups....but Bush campaigned heavily for, and won, the female vote.

I'd think it prudent to give him more than just a few months.

Agree with it or not, he has a plan for withdrawal in Iraq, which is something he did have to backtrack on because an immediate withdrawal wasn't the wisest of ideas, and he has always said he'd focus more on Afghanistan, so no surprise there.

Every politician is, right or wrong, an actor. Just look at the thread where McCain's legendary temper has people flaming him for putting on a different face in front of the cameras. Personally, I could care less about this because the fact of the matter is this: the ignorant masses cannot distinguish between a casual and formal personality. It's aggravating to me, but it is what it is.

Again....more conspiracy where the same could be said and has been said about Bush.

Makes you no different than most of the people in this forum.

I agree, and only time will tell if Obama's way is the right way. I disagree with it in theory, but my understanding of economics is admittedly limited, and trying to filter out sound reasoning from political ideology is nigh impossible.



In short, I think all of you are wrong.

 

I think Hispanics learned a lesson when they supported Bush in his first term only to have his party crap on their face for the next 8 years.

They might like McCain somewhat (they loved Hillary a lot more), but it goes deeper than that.

 

Absolutely. It's not as if, during the primaries, Hispanics who paid careful attention to McCain picked up on his complete reversal/disavowal of his earlier supposed priorities, or anything.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/M34KKaczvKg&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/M34KKaczvKg&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

 

I was not talking about Hispanics. Hispanics are move issues driven voters than are AA's and youth.

 

I see; I stand corrected. So the Hispanics who rejected McCain made rational decisions based on his policy reversals, yet all African Americans, youth (and women) were frothing-at-the-mouth hysterical when they voted for Obama?

 

You can't say that he has done a good job, when it has been just 100 days.

I'd say I prefer the first 100 days of the Bush Administration. It was over the last 4 years that they made me at a complete loss.

 

McCain is in a border state which is getting violence spillover right now.

 

LOL, I love how TJ talks about how other groups vote one way all the time when he has probably never voted for anyone other than a republican

 

also, it absolute wingnut hilarity that someone would actually argue that a person raised by a single poor mother has a just as much of a chance to get into an ivy league instution as a blue blood like gwb.


back away from the keyboard