Election 2008 | George W. Bush | Iraq | John McCain | News | Republican Party | Towleroad Guide to the Tube

Towleroad Guide to the Tube #306: John McCain Edition

NOT TOO IMPORTANT: How McCain feels about bringing the troops home from Iraq.

DNC AD: The DNC quickly took McCain's "not too important" statement and whipped it into a web clip.

JOHN CUSACK: The actor is featured in this new ad from MoveOn.org.

OH, MCCAIN!: The candidate is parodied Schoolhouse Rock-style.

SAFE: The new national TV spot from the McCain campaign.

DEVASTATING: A video created by the Ron Paul campaign that's been re-edited to cut out some distasteful material about McCain's behavior as a POW. This is all useful.

Check out our previous guides to the Tube here.

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. -very balanced reporting here; would be good to hear ALL sides of the story, not just pro-Obama

    Posted by: Ed | Jun 12, 2008 9:22:54 AM


  2. Ed

    What you really meant was "I ain't voting for that scary black marxist muslim/ atheist/ anti-white radical christian (what week is it?) who wants to burn my bible. Praise BUSH in the the holy name of cheney."


    Posted by: Jimmyboyo | Jun 12, 2008 9:30:49 AM


  3. Dear Ed,

    Balanced reporting means showing what is objectively true, not giving 50% to the gays + 50% to the homophobes, etc. This shows McCain in a bad light, but doesn't make it Pro-Obama.

    Get. Over. Yourself.

    Muchas gracias.

    Posted by: One for all | Jun 12, 2008 9:34:04 AM


  4. I don't understand what the big deal is with McCain's comment. I fully expect that we will have a substantial presence in Iraq 50 years from now. The issue isn't when they come home b/c the troops as an institution will not be coming home in the foreseeable future. We haven't left but one country that we worked hard to win in a hundred years. We beat Spain and gained a bit of Cuba; never left there. Same with Philippines. I would hope after all the money and lives that have been spent we would have significant bases for any other flare ups that may happen in the ME.

    Posted by: Jason | Jun 12, 2008 10:27:36 AM


  5. Spoken like a true citizen of Rome, JASON. Hail, Ceesar!

    Posted by: Derrick from Philly | Jun 12, 2008 10:39:01 AM


  6. It's too bad Obama's supporters don't have the same class that he does. Besides, it's not likely that on this site you're going to win any converts from the McCain camp. McCain's a loser - we all know it. Move on. Do something useful like getting Democrats to register and vote.

    Posted by: OzoneDude | Jun 12, 2008 11:13:37 AM


  7. JASON, comparing our staying in Korea, Japan, the Philippines, Cuba and Germany where either a surrender or an armistice was agreed upon and all hositilities ceased with staying in a DEVOLVING war zone is delussional at best and disingenuous and willfully ignorant at worst.

    I suggest you stop echoing the neoconservative talking points because virtually NO ONE in the country is buying them anymore. You're just making yourself look like an ignorant pawn in the promotion of an unpopular and failed foreign policy disaster.

    Oh, and by the way, have you enlisted yet?

    Posted by: Zeke | Jun 12, 2008 11:45:59 AM


  8. And ED, somehow I doubt you were so concerned with getting BOTH sides of the story when our media, instead of DOING THEIR JOBS, were working side by side with your boys in the Bush administration to march us into war based on lies and misinformation.

    I swear, Towleroad has been being linked from GayPatriot, WorldNetDaily or Free Republic alot over the last few days.

    Posted by: Zeke | Jun 12, 2008 11:51:32 AM


  9. McCain is so old, it's depressing. I'd like to think that if he were elected he might be able to run the place, but it looks like we'd get a lot of erratic decisions from his administration.

    Posted by: anon | Jun 12, 2008 12:23:59 PM


  10. Sorry Zeke & Jimmyboyo, I am trying hard, but there is absolutely no way that I can support Obama. I just cannot. And yes Jimmyboyo you are probably right, I am a libertarian. However, there aren't going to be any libs on the presidential ticket anytime soon, that have a chance in hell of winning, so I will have to make the choice for the lesser of the two evils. Sorry, it is not Obama. Failed financial policies worse than W's have been! We cannot afford to take a chance on his lack of experience. I have said it before and I will say it again, the president of the US is not a learn on the job position. Just my opinion.

    Posted by: RB | Jun 12, 2008 1:14:50 PM


  11. RB

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/12/mccain-2005-i-totally-sup_n_106733.html

    Mccain caught on tape from 2005 (darn those internet tubes) saying ".....the fact is that I have agreed with President Bush far more than I have disagreed. And on the transcendent issues, the most important issues of our day, I've been totally in agreement and support of President Bush."

    Mccain is a repeat of bush who you claim has failed you.

    It would be better to go down in defeat voting for the Libertarian Candidate Bob Barr then for you to support bush 2.0

    If enough of you guys vote Bob Barr, maybe the repubs will wake up and fix their house.


    Posted by: Jimmyboyo | Jun 12, 2008 1:23:14 PM


  12. You people need to watch the entire video and not the snippets that TPM give you or brought to you by the DNC, masters of the soundbyte.

    It isn't too important when the troops come home...what is important is that they stop getting killed. Which is exactly the point he went on to make that no one bothers to discuss.

    I am not pro-McCain and will not be voting for him, but if you're going to post a politically motivated video, then at least have the decency to have an elevated and intellectual discussion about it instead of taking things out of context.

    I don't think McCain is the right person to solve Iraq, but he's dead on when he said what is important is that we stop getting killed there. We're not pulling out troops out in the next four years and if you think we are, you're delusional. Anyone who thinks we have zero responsibility to stabilize the country we ripped to shreds is an immoral and irresponsible dick. Period.

    We invaded Germany during war, stayed to make sure it was stabilized and then used our position there to strategically face off against the "threat" of communism for the following four decades. Let's not fool ourselves here if we think we will not be doing exactly the same thing in Iraq. The only reason we are up in arms about it is because we shouldn't have been there to begin with...but that does not at this point negate a moral obligation to not destroy a country's infrastructure and leave. "Bringing the troops home" is a nice political message used to get elected but it shows how irresponsible the Democrats want to be there. Which in my opinion, puts them in the same league as the neo-cons who deceived everyone to invade in the first place.

    Posted by: Banne | Jun 12, 2008 2:19:13 PM


  13. Banne

    Doesn't bringing them home automaticaly mean that casualties will be reduced?

    Germany and Italy both declared war on the USA Dec 11 1941, the USA quickly responded by declaring war on the 2 axis powers that DECLARED WAR ON THE USA 1st

    Iraq never attacked america nor did iraq declare war on the USA.

    For someone claiming to not be supporting mccain you sure are spouting repub soundbites

    Posted by: Jimmyboyo | Jun 12, 2008 2:29:22 PM


  14. What if "stabilizing" an Islamic country takes about 3,000 more American soldier's lives by 2010? Ready to leave then?

    Iraq was "stabile" under Hussein, and could have been jsut as pro-West than Jordan or Egypt. Bush I and Bush the Idiot fucked it up.

    Posted by: Derrick from Philly | Jun 12, 2008 2:37:41 PM


  15. Derrick interesting point

    which brings up

    1- Sadam was a secularist and was naturaly anti fundie religous people like Osama

    2- Osama was very publicly vocal about hating Sadam because Sadam was a secularist

    3- Iraq had the most female PHDs in the ME

    4- Iraqi women were once able to walk the streets of Iraq without having to wear a head scarf, now they must or risk death

    Was Iraq like Jordan and Egypt? Not quiet BUT it could have been with more of a carrot as vs the stick.

    banne and others, NOT 1 single Iraqi was a member of the 9/11 terrorists. In fact the majority 15 out of 19 were SAUDI ARABIAN = bush's best friends and they trained in Afganistan.

    The same people who lied us into this wrong war are the same ones claiming that our leaving will create a chaotic mess. Who wants to believe them again?

    Yes there will be short term chaos, but in the end a much safer and stabile Iraq will result from our quickly leaving.

    Posted by: Jimmyboyo | Jun 12, 2008 3:36:42 PM


  16. What's the background music played on the piano in the last video clip?

    Posted by: John | Jun 12, 2008 6:26:19 PM


  17. Derrick and Jimmyboyo are you kidding me?! I catch total hell for being a gay repub and yet YOU, both gay men, are suggesting that Sadam had "good points" worthy of remaining in power! Really, well what do you think he would do to YOU, as gay men? He would have dropped a wall on you if he could not have gotten you to the gallows faster. Wow, and people talk about me being a gay repub.

    Sorry guys, I am sure that there were one or two jews that thought Hitler was ok too in comparison to Mussolini, the other axis power freak! At least W does not want me to be hanged at sun rise for being gay. NOT something that you could say about Sadam.

    And further Jimmyboyo, You surmsing Sadam as a lesser of two evils is no different from me deciding that McCain is the lesser of two evils. Oh yeah, except the fact that McCain would not place a fatwa on my gay ass! Sorry, but this line of reasoning is so flawed that it really gets me going! Get real!!!

    Posted by: RB | Jun 12, 2008 10:01:23 PM


  18. RB

    What kind of power did iran have in the region prior to us removing Sadam?

    What kind of power does Iran now have in the region after the removal of Sadam?

    Sadam was a foul bastard for sure, but he was our (USA) foul bastard for quite a while

    In a perfect world all such beings wouldn't exist, but in this imperfect world sadam served a stabalizing influence on the region and kept Iran in check.

    Reality is what reality is

    As far as Sadam being a lesser evil than Osama, Osama is still free and running around thanks to bush outsorcing to afgan warlords wehich enabled him to get away at Tora Bora.

    Posted by: Jimmyboyo | Jun 12, 2008 10:10:53 PM


  19. PS

    Who empowered sadam?

    Who gave sadam his weapons?

    Who gave vetoed a UN sanction against Sadam due to his gassing of a sect of communist kurds?

    WE the USA. The Reagan administration went out of its way to ensure that their were no world wide reprucusions against sadam for what he did to the sect of communist kurds. A sect of communist Kurds that the larger Body of Kurds asked to be dealt with. The US wanted dealt with to prevent the spread of communism in the area.

    Posted by: Jimmyboyo | Jun 12, 2008 10:14:04 PM


  20. Damn

    typos and spelling mistakes

    Sorry

    Posted by: Jimmyboyo | Jun 12, 2008 10:15:40 PM


  21. Jimmyboyo, I do not think our current problems with Iran began with Reagan's poor foreign policy!

    If Jimmy Carter had not withdrawn U.S. support for the Shah of Iran there would not have been a hostage crisis that paralyzed this country for 444 days, there would not be an insane Islamic government in Iran today and we would not be having this discussion.

    I have a Persian friend who is in his fifties. He came to this country due to Iran's turmoil. I have listened to him talk about the entire Middle East and he agrees that it was Jimmy Carter that de-stabilized the entire region. He lived there, he saw first hand, he is gay and he is a dem, but on this subject he credits Carter for Iran's failures.

    If you want to discuss the origins of our current situation you have to go back to Carter. Yes, we caused our current strife. Yes you are correct, up to a point. However, we are now in this situation and I am not entirely sure what the answer is, but I know that we cannot simply pack up our toys and come home without a plan. Very simply, Carter got us into this mess and yes
    Bush absolutely blew it up!

    We as a country have learned absolutely NOTHING from the seventies and I often wonder if there is anyone posting here that is over 20! We have tried windfall profits taxes before on the oil companies and it failed miserably! All we got was long lines! But there have been worse years. 1978 for example, gasoline was rationed so tightly that drivers had to wait in long lines, and stations had only enough fuel to stay open a few hours a day. I remember sitting in those long lines with my mother!

    We have tried conservation. We have tried to "liberate" the Middle East and we still are no better off than we were before.

    Obama supports the failed policies from the seventies! He supports windfall taxes on the oil companies, which only about 5% of our current oil comes from domestic companies and would not effect the price of oil, not drilling in Anwar, speed limit back to 55, and getting out of Iraq immediately with no plan for the consequences. For God's sake Obama is even running on practically the same slogan "trust me" as Carter and Americans are going to flock to the polls, keen for a change in government and vote for the man with no experience? I am sorry, I get it. W was the worst we have had in some time. However, I DO remember the seventies and I do NOT want to repeat them!

    All I am asking is “WHAT CHANGE” are we going to get? WHAT is Obama going to do? How is he going to help us? Yes, I would love to have some change, but at what cost? Help us do not take us back to 1978, we have been there and done it. IT FAILED!

    Posted by: RB | Jun 13, 2008 3:40:35 AM


  22. Case in point: "We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK," Obama said. Sounds dangerously like the rhetoric of Carter circa 1979/1980 when said that Americans needed to get used to getting by with less. Tell me how that is "positive change". Tell me where there is a progressive forward thinking notion here. Tell me where he is financially good for this country. All this and I would venture a guess that we would still not be at Macy's picking out a china pattern for our future weddings!

    Posted by: RB | Jun 13, 2008 3:52:26 AM


  23. RB

    Our Iran probloems go back even farther than Carter.

    Eisenhower!

    Eisenhower sent over the grandson of Teddy rosevelt, a CIA operative to finance and back a coup. The coup overthrew the democratic parlimentary system of Iran and bestowed the shah (a figure head at the time) with absolute power.

    The parliment was going to nationale there oil wells and make sure a larger percentage of the profits remained in Iran. the profits from their natural resource. The shah did the opposite in payment for our setting him as absolute leader.

    He made it illegal for large groups of men to meet anywhere in iran except in mosques. Thus the birth of radical political islam was born since dissent could not be expressed or discussed anywhere else except mosques.

    The ayatolah cam along and the shah was overthrown sending out ripples across the middle east spreading radical political islam.

    A great book on the subject is "All The Shah's Men"

    On

    Posted by: Jimmyboyo | Jun 13, 2008 2:57:47 PM


Post a comment







Trending


« «Human Ovulation Captured on Film for First Time« «