Who has the McCain "House" quote link?

I didn't hear about this yesterday but apparently McCain floundered over a question regarding how many houses he and his wife owns. Does anyone have the actual quote from Politico?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12685.html

I'm really sick of people getting embarrassed about being wealthy and successful. The appropriate answer would have been "More than you ever will, douchebag. What the berkeley does that have to do with anything?"

<---Not a big McCain fan. Not a big Obama fan; but a big fan of free enterprise.

I bring it up not for the fact that he owns multiple homes, he and his wife are wealthy and I expect as such.

I bring this up because of the stuttering and stammering that the press is emphasizing that I don't quite get:

"I think -- I'll have my staff get to you," McCain replied. "It's condominiums where -- I'll have them get to you."

It just seems odd that you can't answer a question any more without clearing it with your press secretary.

It's easy to forget the condos.

Seriously... I don't care if McCain owns 50 houses and uses several of them for nothing but target practice and/or wild sex parties. I'm just interested in how he plans to get us out of the current mess(es) we're in.

The issue behind this comment is that McCain has tried to describe Obama as an elitest that is out of touch with the average American. The reality is that maybe they both are but Obama was a regular guy not that long ago while it's been decades for McCain.

It probably doesn't matter much to anyone that doesn't follow this as closely as political junkies like me.

Maybe they should ask "How much money have you taken from Syrian Nationals?"

lol

Or they should ask, if you think there are too many lobbiest in Washington, why do you have 160 working on your campaign?

Dr. Hess wrote: Maybe they should ask "How much money have you taken from Syrian Nationals?"

doitover wrote: It probably doesn't matter much to anyone that doesn't follow this as closely as political junkies like me.

Niiiiiice. Subtle.

So exactly how many houses do you have to own to be a good president?

Has anyone heard the word "relevance" used in any media lately? Just curious.

I do agree though, removing all other factors, McCain speaking "issues" I think will sink him, especially with how smooth Obama is. Is a well spoken president a good president? I honestly think it does make a difference (look at the current one, I shudder to think what that guy might be saying to foreign leaders in private).

doitover wrote: The issue behind this comment is that McCain has tried to describe Obama as an elitest that is out of touch with the average American. The reality is that maybe they both are but Obama was a regular guy not that long ago while it's been decades for McCain. It probably doesn't matter much to anyone that doesn't follow this as closely as political junkies like me.

McCain's "elitist" comment was in response to this statement:

Obama said: "They cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment."

It didn't have a berkeleying thing to do with how much wealth or how many homes Obama has.

Hmmm. We have Nader bitching about tech companies raking the little guy over the coals and then revealing he owns over $4 million in tech stocks, Al Gore telling us all to live by candlelight while he lives in a mansion that costs some stupid amount to heat and cool, John Edwards saying Bill Clinton was an embarrassment to the nation and then he gets caught doing the same thing. That's all OK, they are allowed because, after all, they are Democrats and thus above being called to task for any such matters.

But let McCain not have an answer at his fingertips and suddenly it's torchlight procession time. Maybe it's just me.... reckon it's got anything to do with him suddenly being six or seven points ahead of Obama in the polls? [Huckleberry Hound] Heavens to murgatroyd! [/Huckleberry Hound]

aircooled wrote: Is a well spoken president a good president? I honestly think it does make a difference (look at the current one, I shudder to think what that guy might be saying to foreign leaders in private).

Not sure if it makes you a "good' president, but it damn well can get you elected. See also "The Great Communicator" aka "Ronald Reagan."

Jensenman wrote: Hmmm. We have Nader bitching about tech companies raking the little guy over the coals and then revealing he owns over $4 million in tech stocks, Al Gore telling us all to live by candlelight while he lives in a mansion that costs some stupid amount to heat and cool, John Edwards saying Bill Clinton was an embarrassment to the nation and then he gets caught doing the same thing. That's all OK, they are allowed because, after all, they are Democrats and thus above being called to task for any such matters.

Al Gore can say what he wants. It's free speech. The wackier he gets, the less people will pay attention.

I'd say Edwards is feeling the repercussions of his poor choices.

Sorry to burst your fantasy bubble, but I don't see the Dems getting any special treatment.

I think if you have been paying attention painting Democrats as elitest has been a Republican strategy for a while. With Obama it started earlier than the comment you mention, which was both taken out of context and could have been better worded.

You sure are an angry guy, is that tiring?

poopshovel wrote:

doitover wrote: The issue behind this comment is that McCain has tried to describe Obama as an elitest that is out of touch with the average American. The reality is that maybe they both are but Obama was a regular guy not that long ago while it's been decades for McCain. It probably doesn't matter much to anyone that doesn't follow this as closely as political junkies like me.

McCain's "elitist" comment was in response to this statement:

Obama said: "They cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment."

It didn't have a berkeleying thing to do with how much wealth or how many homes Obama has.

Salanis wrote:

Jensenman wrote: Hmmm. We have Nader bitching about tech companies raking the little guy over the coals and then revealing he owns over $4 million in tech stocks, Al Gore telling us all to live by candlelight while he lives in a mansion that costs some stupid amount to heat and cool, John Edwards saying Bill Clinton was an embarrassment to the nation and then he gets caught doing the same thing. That's all OK, they are allowed because, after all, they are Democrats and thus above being called to task for any such matters.

Al Gore can say what he wants. It's free speech. The wackier he gets, the less people will pay attention. I'd say Edwards is feeling the repercussions of his poor choices. Sorry to burst your fantasy bubble, but I don't see the Dems getting any special treatment.

Okey dokey, it's neccessary to clarify: I mean doitover/skappes gives them a free pass.

I have found it really odd, though, that the National Enquirer were the ones who persistently stayed with the Edwards story while the mainstream media pretty much let it slide for about two years.

This is the same mainstream media which spread the Larry Craig story far and wide immediately.

Jensenman wrote: This is the same mainstream media which spread the Larry Craig story far and wide immediately.

There's a big difference between banging a chick who's not your wife and banging random guys in public bathroom stalls.

Larry Craig was well known for his stance on how evil the homosexuals are... and was then found to proposition guys in public restrooms.

To quote a soundbite from SNL: "I'm not bothered by that you were trying to have gay sex in a public restroom. I'm bothered by the fact that you were trying to have any sex in a public restroom."

Aside from that there are two big differences: what Larry Craig did was against the law; Edwards took the initiative and publicly admitted his mistakes. Taking responsibility tends to defuse the situation by getting everything over with quickly.

doitover wrote: I think if you have been paying attention painting Democrats as elitest has been a Republican strategy for a while. With Obama it started earlier than the comment you mention, which was both taken out of context and could have been better worded. You sure are an angry guy, is that tiring?

poopshovel wrote:

doitover wrote: The issue behind this comment is that McCain has tried to describe Obama as an elitest that is out of touch with the average American. The reality is that maybe they both are but Obama was a regular guy not that long ago while it's been decades for McCain. It probably doesn't matter much to anyone that doesn't follow this as closely as political junkies like me.

McCain's "elitist" comment was in response to this statement:

Obama said: "They cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment."

It didn't have a berkeleying thing to do with how much wealth or how many homes Obama has.

You're berkeleying joking right? If the democrats aren't the "Those rich, white republicans have too much money, and we're gonna take 'em down a notch" party, then I'm Obama's uncle. Not to say that the Republicans aren't guilty of trying to scare people into voting for them.

You used the word "elitist." McCain used the word "elitist." When he used the word, he was commenting directly on the Obama quote above.

And yes, I become "berkeleying angry dude" when I start talking politics, but in a sick berkeley sort of way, I really enjoy it. Think: Libertarian Lewis Black.

Yes, the difference is that there is a party that is always drumming the fear the gays and what they are doing to the soil drum and then get caught soiling the soil. That's entirely different than a party that isn't trying to get into your bedroom.

Salanis wrote:

Jensenman wrote: This is the same mainstream media which spread the Larry Craig story far and wide immediately.

There's a big difference between banging a chick who's not your wife and banging random guys in public bathroom stalls. Larry Craig was well known for his stance on how evil the homosexuals are... and was then found to proposition guys in public restrooms. To quote a soundbite from SNL: "I'm not bothered by that you were trying to have gay sex in a public restroom. I'm bothered by the fact that you were trying to have *any* sex in a public restroom." Aside from that there are two big differences: what Larry Craig did was against the law; Edwards took the initiative and publicly admitted his mistakes. Taking responsibility tends to defuse the situation by getting everything over with quickly.

Salanis wrote: Edwards took the initiative and publicly admitted his mistakes. Taking responsibility tends to defuse the situation by getting everything over with quickly.

I don't understand this mentality in our country.

"Oh they said they were sorry, its OK now."

Like its fine to just do whatever the berkeley you want because you took the initiative to apologize? Please. How about taking the initiative to NOT BE AN A$$HAT to begin with?

doitover wrote: Yes, the difference is that there is a party that is always drumming the fear the gays and what they are doing to the soil drum and then get caught soiling the soil. That's entirely different than a party that isn't trying to get into your bedroom.

[Benicio Del Toro]Gimedahfahkenkehsyahcocsahker.[/Del Toro]

[Cop] -Kshhk- In English please.[/cop]

Did I say that the Democrats don't describe the Republicans as fat cats that eat poor orphan kids as appetizers in the country club?

Not that that isn't an accurate description.

It's a stretch to say that Democrats want to knock the rich down a notch. I think statistically the country does better growth wise when there is a democratic president. The two sides just differ on how wealth is accumulated. The Republicans tten to feel there should be no regulation and no taxation. The Democrats sanely look at the history of humanity and understand that that's stupid.

I'm pretty relaxed about this because I don't think Obama's going to win. It seems to be impossible to elect an intelligent man to the presidency in this country. If the election is close, racism will unfortunately go against him. The only glimmer of hope I have is that the ratio of Obama stickers to McCain is easily 10:1 everywhere I've been this year.

The democrats should do well in the senate, that's something at least.

poopshovel wrote:

doitover wrote: I think if you have been paying attention painting Democrats as elitest has been a Republican strategy for a while. With Obama it started earlier than the comment you mention, which was both taken out of context and could have been better worded. You sure are an angry guy, is that tiring?

poopshovel wrote:

doitover wrote: The issue behind this comment is that McCain has tried to describe Obama as an elitest that is out of touch with the average American. The reality is that maybe they both are but Obama was a regular guy not that long ago while it's been decades for McCain. It probably doesn't matter much to anyone that doesn't follow this as closely as political junkies like me.

McCain's "elitist" comment was in response to this statement:

Obama said: "They cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment."

It didn't have a berkeleying thing to do with how much wealth or how many homes Obama has.

You're berkeleying joking right? If the democrats aren't the "Those rich, white republicans have too much money, and we're gonna take 'em down a notch" party, then I'm Obama's uncle. Not to say that the Republicans aren't guilty of trying to scare people into voting for them. You used the word "elitist." McCain used the word "elitist." When he used the word, he was commenting directly on the Obama quote above. And yes, I become "berkeleying angry dude" when I start talking politics, but in a sick berkeley sort of way, I really enjoy it. Think: Libertarian Lewis Black.

z31maniac wrote:

Salanis wrote: Edwards took the initiative and publicly admitted his mistakes. Taking responsibility tends to defuse the situation by getting everything over with quickly.

I don't understand this mentality in our country. "Oh they said they were sorry, its OK now." Like its fine to just do whatever the berkeley you want because you took the initiative to apologize? Please. How about taking the initiative to NOT BE AN A$$HAT to begin with?

What he did was in poor taste and not especially moral. But it was not illegal. Many of us don't give a E36 M3 what politicians want to do in private with other consenting adults.

The big scandals usually come about when people try to cover up, deny, avoid the subject, and mislead people. He did not do any of those things. Or, they come up because a politician is a complete hypocrite ("I hate gays, but have gay sex in bathroom stalls").

This is really a family issue. It should be left to his family. It doesn't affect us.

It doesn't matter that he said, "sorry", it matters that he didn't lie to us. He doesn't owe me an explanation. I wish media would keep their noses out of politician's bedrooms.

Normally I'd agree but fooling around on your wife while she is fighting cancer is kind of low. Kind of like dumping your badly injured wife for a wealthy trophy wife would be a pretty good indication of your true character.

Salanis wrote:

z31maniac wrote:

Salanis wrote: Edwards took the initiative and publicly admitted his mistakes. Taking responsibility tends to defuse the situation by getting everything over with quickly.

I don't understand this mentality in our country. "Oh they said they were sorry, its OK now." Like its fine to just do whatever the berkeley you want because you took the initiative to apologize? Please. How about taking the initiative to NOT BE AN A$$HAT to begin with?

What he did was in poor taste and not especially moral. But it was not illegal. Many of us don't give a E36 M3 what politicians want to do in private with other consenting adults. The big scandals usually come about when people try to cover up, deny, avoid the subject, and mislead people. He did not do any of those things. Or, they come up because a politician is a complete hypocrite ("I hate gays, but have gay sex in bathroom stalls"). This is really a family issue. It should be left to his family. It doesn't affect us. It doesn't matter that he said, "sorry", it matters that he didn't lie to us. He doesn't owe me an explanation. I wish media would keep their noses out of politician's bedrooms.