How to Beat a Rock Star: ‘Substance.’

NEWSWEEK

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: ped2008 @ 06/09/2008 12:42:15 AM

    Hello! I just want to have some comments on this--By posting this on the internet, I think you pretty much low yourself--So, I don't trust you at all you "people." I think that the American people need change right now.In fact, we cannot afford another third George W. Worst and John Mackenia. So, let's change be reign in this great nation.Thank you so much!

    • Posted By: teiyali @ 06/09/2008 2:07:33 AM

      I believe you're low yourself, changing is something we view, decide upon and then we allow changes to happen depending on the right course. To change by voting for Obama is just another disaster awaiting to happen. He will sell you out with any little trust you claim on him. You do what you got do, and the poeple of the United State will do what they want to do.

  • Posted By: pistolman2 @ 06/09/2008 2:03:26 AM

    I have been a Democrate for all my adult life (62 yr. old) . But I will vote for mr. McCain because of his experience and will safeguard this country against terrorist threats. Hillary would have gotten my vote if she was running. Someone made a comment that someone should check Obama's head to see if three six's were tatooed there. Seriously I do believe Mr. McCain is the best man for the job.

  • Posted By: r_doss @ 06/09/2008 12:59:01 AM

    McCain stumped for Bush in 2004, and he supports the Iraq war and tax cuts for the rich. It would be a cold day in hell before I vote for this Bush wannabe. His age and experience have taught him nothing, so why should he brag about it? I'm a senior, but I agree that "there's no fool like an old fool."

    • Posted By: teiyali @ 06/09/2008 1:57:45 AM

      You vote for whomever you want to, but I quarantee you that this country will be down as we had never before with a leader like Obama. His charismatic may influence a lot of citizens in this country, but we definitely be on our knees awaiting Hitler to come back for an execution ceremony.

  • Posted By: Thevail @ 06/08/2008 3:58:19 AM

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEtZlR3zp4c

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioy90nF2anI&feature=related

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9Dd-yg2A4E&feature=related

    Seriously..no way..McFlip McFlop McSame McCain is both senile and a Bush kissass.

    • Posted By: Nins @ 06/09/2008 1:12:11 AM

      Wow. Amazing videos, especially the first two.

  • Posted By: denmill @ 06/08/2008 11:19:22 PM

    Obama is an orator just like his mentors Wright and Farrakhan. He has no substance no precise direction and and no plan. He thinks that the American people are going to fall for "eloquent words", He is such an egomaniac. He is already campaning for his second term in 2012. He would be make some good if he get out of poliics and take over his ? past Church in South Chicago.

    • Posted By: raddave @ 06/08/2008 11:31:42 PM

      Louis Farrakhan is no mentor of Obama. As you recall Farrakhan endorsed Obama and he turned it down rather quickly. Stop trying to tie Obama to Farrakhan. At least go to Obama's web page, read it, then decide if he has no plan.

      • Posted By: toadrw @ 06/09/2008 1:09:47 AM

        He has a plan. A plan which Louis Farrakhan and Hamas endorse. You've got a problem when terrorists agree with the direction you want to take the country. William Ayers, Bernadette Dorn, Trinity Church and Rev. Wright, Tony Rezko... he's almost got as much baggage as Clinton and has only been in the Senate since 2004. You can add his wife to the list of people who hate America.

  • Posted By: cstearcwshop @ 06/09/2008 12:50:10 AM

    From kenya where obama has roots,I think you Americans are great people.your level of democracracy is nquestionable,but also the issue of race is still very much alive long after all those declarations.People should just vote for some body regardless of colour,religion or gender,they should vote for policies that person is promising during his/her campaign rather than look at his skin colour.My personal suggestion please the combination of Obama/Hillary will be a force to contend with and the two can compliment each other so well that in a matter of couple of years the whole world will realise what USA was missing for the last two centuries.Talk to the terrorists,Talk to the palestinians,Talk to the iraqis,talk to the Iranians and talk to about everybody who is not happy with you and you will see a great change in attitude.

  • Posted By: tmalia023 @ 06/08/2008 11:42:21 PM

    Completely beside the point, however I've got to make a correction to 'nins' statement about fetuses below 26 weeks of age never surviving. Having a daughter born at 30 weeks gestation, I met a lot of families with premature babies. My 3 pound girl was one of the largest in the first NICU she was in. There were several babies born at 24 and 25 weeks who survived. With medical complications, but they survived and are now thriving toddlers. Let's not forget the baby born at only 22 weeks who is now a happy little girl with a small handful of medical issues. Despite the medical complications these young fetuses and infants may incur, they are still able to have a phenominal life full of love and quality.

    Off topic, but it upsets me to hear a medical doctor shun babies born pre-26 weeks.

    • Posted By: Nins @ 06/09/2008 12:06:43 AM

      Hi Malia, you are right that there are some rare and amazing exceptions to the 26 week rule, and God bless them all. When I said 26 weeks I was generalizing, referring to the cut-off point used by most doctors as the gestational "point of no return." I certainly didn't mean to "shun" any child that might have a prayer. Once a woman gets to 27 weeks, all doctors feel a lot more relaxed about premature deliveries.

      However, the bill in question specified fetuses 20 weeks and below. I have never heard of any baby born before that surviving, even with serious complications.

  • Posted By: mexed @ 06/08/2008 11:49:15 PM

    In the days of identity politics I start by saying I am a white mail,63 years old. There is nothing that I have seen in McCain's voting record, in his family life, in his political behaviors that lead me to believe that he has more "substance" than anyone else who started the campaign as a Republican or Democratic nominee. Barack Obama is different than McCain but McCain is trying to measure Barack against what McCain assumes about himself. It is a simple error on his part. 1. He sees himself as more substantial or is using this ruse to make political points which is one indicator that he is not more substantial in terms of character for sure. 2. He is saying that Barack is less substantial than he is but uses his own measure and own criteria. The McCain voting record is clearly an indication of his substance. He is substantially a traditional Republican who will continue to be so. He will continue to support the Republican agenda of more for fewer people. He has already made it clear that he is not about to challenge much of anything in terms of our trading with the world. He has made it clear that he supports banks first, the people second. He has made it clear that he supports tax breaks for the rich and not for the middleclass because he still holds to the economic version of trickle-down economics that has not worked. What has trickled has gone abroad. The country is not looking for more of the same and that is what he offers. Barack is clearly developing his direction and agenda and it appears to me to be from someone who has substance and it is a substance that I clearly prefer to whatever substance John McCain has to offer. I'll measure either man by the progrmas, the agenda, the direction. At this point Barack has the better plan, better programs, better direction.

    • Posted By: Nins @ 06/09/2008 12:01:12 AM

      Mexed, you are right on all points. I just wanted to add my two cents about the trickle down theory.

      I'm a CEO and I used to be very much in favor of tax cuts for corporations, Congressional lobbying and the whole nine yards, because I strongly believed in the trickle down theory. The trickle down theory says that if you have economically healthy corporations, that wealth will trickle down to the little guy and to all the worker bees, and America will remain strong and secure. That worked for the past 100 years. But it no longer works, because with outsourcing of so many jobs and factories overseas, the trickle down is trickling into the economies of India and China and Mexico. It no longer trickles into the USA. Yet these "American" corporations continue to benefit from American tax cuts while doing business in other countries, the extensive deregulation of banking and industry and the other favors Bush has paid to the corporate world to the detriment of his own people.

      Like I said, I saw nothing wrong with this when it was benefitting average Americans. But now, as we face an almost insurmountable National Debt, the lobbyists are working overtime to make sure that they keep their stranglehold over American lawmakers, and keep our hands tied so we can't break free from a system that was built to be their cash cow.

      Barack Obama has the balls (and it takes big ones) to stand up to all this chicanery, and throw these criminals out of Washington.

      Amen.

  • Posted By: mexed @ 06/09/2008 12:01:01 AM

    Be rational and vote McCain? Be rational and vote for someone who does not share my familly values protecting my marriage? Be rational and vote for someone who does not share my understanding of what is needed to improve the economy of this country? Be rational and vote for someone who wants to continue to bully his way through the world? Voting for McCain in my opinion would be a betrayal of all I would like to see changed to make for a stronger America, a more just America, a free America, a healthy America. I also could not be rational and vote for a man who, like Ronald Reagan, has a good chance of losing his memory in during his presidency.

  • Posted By: perumanian @ 06/08/2008 2:06:51 PM

    It will be stupid of Americans again to vote in a democratic guy at this time, with the dem majority ruling. The liberals will be running with their agenda without any regard for the majority Americans. Mccaine is not same as Bush as everybody knows but the dems are trying to paint him (except that he is trying to court the conservative base). Mccaine the democratic choice!!!

    • Posted By: raddave @ 06/08/2008 11:51:40 PM

      McSame is the same as McBush, just older

    • Posted By: cbnboy1974 @ 06/08/2008 6:05:47 PM

      Like hell he isnt....As long as Mcain is in office , we will always been at war , and that is how he makes his living,

  • Posted By: kidrichter @ 06/08/2008 11:30:49 PM

    Two wrongs do not make a right.
    America is so desperate for change that we are about elect the Pied Piper as president. . . and you can bet our treasury and uniquely American sense if independence and self reliance will suffer accordingly.
    Bush was desperate to go to war and look how he botched it. As voters we can't afford to make the same mistake. McCain 2008mistake. Not now.

  • Posted By: kidrichter @ 06/08/2008 11:28:47 PM

    Two wrongs do not make a right.
    America is so desperate for change that elect the Pied Piper as president. . . and you can bet our treasury and uniquely American sense if independence and self reliance will suffer accordingly.
    Bush was desperate to go to war and look how he botched it. As voters we can't afford to make the same mistake. McCain 2008mistake. Not now.

  • Posted By: Driver of wagons @ 06/08/2008 11:25:27 PM



    Firefighters hired by the state of Oregon as government employees are required to speak English.

    The bilingual crew leader requirement applies to private contractors that choose to hire non-English-speakers.

    The person taking this story around to the media who was not allowed to act as a crew leader runs a private contracting company, and the state informed him that he had to be bilingual to be the crew leader if any of his crew didn't speak Engish because the state's own firefighters operate only in English.

    So the guy hired a bunch of migrant workers who didn't speak English for his crew (because they're cheaper, of course), and the state refused to let him lead them if he couldn't speak their language because it didn't want these guys to go out there and get killed because their own boss couldn't give them instructions.


  • Posted By: robertforchange @ 06/08/2008 11:20:59 PM

    With all due respect, this article asks the wrong question. And, it assumes Obama has no substance. The reality of the matter -- if you dig deep, and take the time to read each candidate's policy positions and ideas -- that Obama wins the substance argument by a landslide. Not merely a win for Obama. An Obama wipe out.
    That's substance we can believe in.

  • Posted By: marions @ 06/08/2008 11:10:17 PM

    Couldn't McCain at least be briefed on that report????? How can a Candidate running for President not make time to stay informed regarding basic government happenings? I have serious doubts about McCains ability to evaluate and process the essential information flowing through the Presidential Office. How can he ask us to let him make critical decisions affecting our nation. It's like admitting he doesn't know what is going on!!!!

  • Posted By: Bahrainium @ 06/08/2008 11:08:41 PM

    If people wanted substance then they would have voted for Dr. Ron Paul.

  • Posted By: Nins @ 06/08/2008 11:05:08 PM

    Substance? What substance?

    In the first session of the 110th Congress (2007), McCain holds the dubious honor of missing, by a wide margin, more votes than any other Senator save one. The only one who missed more? That would be Senator Tim Johnson, who was recovering from a brain hemorrhage.

    The Washington Post has a database that tracks vote missed in the Senate. McCain missed a whopping 261 of 468 votes, about 56%. And it not because he wasn't there in the building. He refuses to vote on any bill that is controversial or that he might be criticized for. Consequently, he votes on almost all of the silly votes (like "Name a Daisy Day") but fails to be in the room when really important stuff is going down, like votes concerning the war in Iraq. Senator Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader became so angry with McCain about this that he took him task for it right on the Senate floor, saying "Senator McCain has spent considerable time defending the President on Iraq, but has only managed to show up for four of the last fourteen Iraq votes."

    In case you think I made that up, I will give you a reference: "McCain Missed Votes on Iraq Triggers Reid Rebuke" published in The Hill, May 17, 2007.

    You may be asking why would McCain not want to vote on Iraq? Because he already knew then that he would be running for President, and he knew the war was increasingly unpopular, and he didn't want the Democrats to be able to point to his record and say "Look how he votes on Iraq."

    McCain has also missed important votes on national security, funding of law enforcement, equipment for firefighters, and of course, his most recent no-show, on giving veterans the GI Bill. In fact, McCain misses more than half of his votes.

    Is this the kind of President that you want?

  • Posted By: notroubleatall1963 @ 06/08/2008 10:01:16 PM

    If John McCain is so great, why the hell didn't the Republicans nominate him back in 2000?? Bush Jr. was inexperienced - even moreso than Obama, I'd argue - and yet everyone in the GOP seemed to allow Bush to belittle McCain's mililtary experience as a war hero - NOW, ALL OF A SUDDEN, McCain is to be revered as a war hero and true patriot. I think the GOP has been operating with their proverbial heads up their axxes for the past decade. Anybody who would pick Bush Jr. over McCain is crazy. Absolutely nuts.

    Now, against Obama, that's a little different. First of all, Obama has more than half a brain. He's crafty, savvy and smooth, and he's brilliant, not to mention a superb communicator. He shows talent on his own merits, and has won LEGITIMATELY his nomination, against a formible, favorite candidate, lontime political operative HIllary Clinton.

    McCain is now too old, bless his yeart, and perhaps a bit too frail, despite his doctor's extensive documentation to the contrary. I do not think we should elect a man president just because we stiffed him in 2000 (if that's the case, then hell - bring on Al Gore!), or because he's a war hero and he deserves to make it to the Presidency in his dodering old age, golden years...

    We can't waste so much time and talent by passing up a younger, energized candidate who has won many hearts and minds without having to resort to old-school politics.

    Sure, Obama's not perfect - he has some weaknesses. But I'm willing to gamble that he can see things through, no matter how tough, and will make things happen where nobody (including Hillary) was able to succeed before. He may not be able to "change" evreything, but he will work hard on the things that really matter to the majority of hard-working Americans.

    McCain will look out for the interests of the rich, as the GOP has always done, while paying lip service to the blue collar bubbas who believe so blindly in patriotism, ma and apple pie that they'd vote for a Horse if it was wearing a red elephant costume!

    • Posted By: Nins @ 06/08/2008 11:03:08 PM

      Great post! Thanks for taking the trouble, NoTrouble.

      I agree with you that if it was a contest between McCain and Bush, I would vote for McCain (and I did in the 2000 primary).

      But it is not a contest between McCian and Bush. It is a contest between Obama and McCain, and despite all of McCain's good qualities, I think that Obama is clearly the better candidate. If this was a time of peace and prosperity, I think McCain would make an able President. But this is a time of war and severe economic instability. Aside from being an unthinking hawk, McCain has no economic platform. Anyone who thinks that we can improve our economy without getting out of the multi-trillion dollar cash hemorrhage in Iraq, is beyond naieve.

      Obama on the other hand has detailed plans for how to turn around the recession. I am VERY worried about the economy. So are lots of people, including Rupert Murdoch, multi-billionaire owner of FoxNews and an arch-conservative Republican. Mr. Murdoch is supporting Obama, because he says that McCain is "weak on the economy" and that with McCain as President "the recession would deepen into a depression."

      Warren Buffet, CEO of Berkshire Hathaway and the richest man in the world is also supporting Obama, because he also believes Obama has what it takes to turn around our failing economy.

      Honestly, I think that both of these men know more about the economy and more about Obama's and McCain's capabilities than most of us do.

      Obama will win, and he will change our nation for the better.

  • Posted By: psyteam @ 06/08/2008 10:58:09 PM

    Welcome to McCain???s personal delusion: A New American Dystopia.

    To begin with, McCain is no ???maverick.??? That ridiculous misnomer ------- bequeathed on this geezer by the media ------ is not reflected by McClone???s voting record. A whopping 89% of the time, this evil old prik has voted for all of the failed and flawed Bush strategies.

    In fact, McCain personifies the delusional thought process which has brought the United States to the brink of one-party-totalitarian-rule. Let???s review the corporate fascist regime McCain has supported:

    1. Genocide against Iraq ----- a country even Bush admits had no links to 911 or al Qaeda.
    2. 12 billion/m on this fake war, which continues to place our troops in the cross fire between Islamic jihadists and tribal factions.
    3. A war which, according to our own CIA, has radicalized Koranic fundamentalist sentiment instead of keeping us safe from it.
    4. Illegal surveillance; violation of the FISA court
    5. Our nation beggared to China ----- who is largely funding the Iraq fiasco
    6. Skyrocketing gas prices, plunging economy, record home foreclosures.
    7. An administration awash in corruption, indictments and felony convictions.

    And all of it, mind you, done to implement the great, neoconservative ???wet dream:??? A global, free market economy ----- as set forth in the PNAC.

    If this old f*ck McCain thought the Hanoi Hilton was bad, wait till he debates Obama.

    1) Press conf. http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/no-saddam-qaeda.htm)
    2) 911 Commission ----- June 17, 2004
    3) 2008 Senate Intelligence Committee;
    4) Chief U.S. Weapons Inspector Report on Iraqi Arms Program, Charles A. Duelfer, Oct 5, 2004.
    5) 60 Minutes, aired April 23, 2006 Tyler Drumheller: ???Bush knew in 2002???
    6) State Department???s Bureau of Intelligence & Research)
    7) January 2004 report by the Army War College)
    8) Baghdad year zero: Pillaging Iraq in pursuit of a neocon utopia: http://www.harpers.org/archive/2004/09/0080197


  • Posted By: Driver of wagons @ 06/08/2008 10:48:54 PM



    "McCain't and isn't able to Govern" Has just as much substance as his supporters and they just can't seem to quite make that move to the 21st century Their antiquated rhetoric is just that, Antiquated! And their pretzel logic is not going to carry them this time.
    35 + MIl Votes and not counting the caucuses to 9 Mil votes and that is just the preliminaries.

    This Isn't even a contest.

    You don't have to go home but you can't stay here


Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse