Reply With Quote
It's pretty simple. Obama proposed it first. It came out that Bush and the Iraqis wanted to follow a very similar proposal. Obama is taking credit for it and claims it as his own. He can say it's smart because he proposed it first. Understand?
Someone please explain to me why Obama and Biden both keep mentioning this.
From the vice president debate:
The Democrats are running on the platform that Bush could make the Antichrist look decent but then both Obama and Biden try to prove McCain is wrong because he disagrees with Bush. When Obama first did it, I thought it was an accident. But this must actually be a talking point because now Biden almost said word for word what Obama said in the first debate.
How can you destroy Bush with every ounce of your soul out of one side of your mouth and then out of the other side of your mouth use McCain thinking differently than Bush as evidence that McCain is wrong? I know politics is all about doublespeak but this talking point is just mind-boggling.
It's pretty simple. Obama proposed it first. It came out that Bush and the Iraqis wanted to follow a very similar proposal. Obama is taking credit for it and claims it as his own. He can say it's smart because he proposed it first. Understand?
They are trying to say that they amazingly changed Bush's mind about something, and that position to which he changed his mind just happens to be right. Their basis is that Maliki and the Iraqi people want it. But then they turn around and say every other thing Bush does is wrong.
They're trying to make McCain look even WORSE than Bush. They're saying hey look, McCain is going to continue all of Bush's policies, even the ones Bush doesn't want to continue anymore. I think Iraq is the one place they can do that effectively.
That being said, its a tough sell and even if they can do it it doesn't mean they will pull it off.
So when Obama and Bush agree, it's a good thing. When McCain and Bush agree, it's McSame being McSame.
Got it.
Actually no. It's pretty simple.
Manny explained it best.
I realize that is what they are trying to do but Obama and Biden have discounted all of Bush's old policies and then have discounted him even further when his policies change. When at least half of your platform is based on how horrible Bush have been, they shouldn't pick and choose when to put Bush in good light and try to use that against McCain.
Being 100% anti-Bush is a very good strategy for Obama/McCain. These remarks where they try to use Bush to their advantage is a maneuver that would make Gore/Lieberman blush.
Is that really how you took my post? So you would like Obama to say it's a horrible plan because Bush followed it? That's the most idiotic thing I've seen tonight....well I did just watch Sarah Palin for an hour and a half so yours is just "very" idiotic.
It's ok TimVP. You're not very bright. We won't waste anymore time explaining it to you, probably to nuanced for you to understand.
I'm saying why would Obama and Biden use Bush as a hammer when the other 99.999% of the time they are making Bush out to be the worst thing to ever happen in the history of man. Why even go there?
Maliki more or less agreed with Obama first, now the Bush administration is negotiating from that point with Maliki. There was a bit of consternation from the administration when the reports came out. The Democrats are basically declaring themselves ahead of the curve on this issue, and claiming it's a more concrete plan than anything McCain has come up with.
I don't know enough about McCain's plan to say what's better.
TheMadHater chimes in with more brilliance.
Props
Basically Obama is such an encompassing en y he can even sway the judgment of the Antichrist Bush.
Meanwhile McCain is an immortal and wants to occupy Iran for 100 years or some .
As Manny said, they're contrasting Bush, who they always say is horrible, with John McCain. They're saying EVEN Bush supports it so opposing it must be worse than Bush. Get it?
I think the reason this works though is because as much as people hate Bush, they hate Iraq more. So while you're framing it as McCain against Bush, that doesn't tend to stick as much in peoples minds as McCain tied to Iraq.
Got damn you Obamanseed gulpers are dense. Manny is the only one in this thread who halfway even understood what I was asking.
The rest of you just go into full-on Obama protection mode. Even when the person asking the question is leaning more toward Obama than McCain. The only thing holding him back is that a large section of hardcore Obama supporters are so clueless it makes it difficult getting all the way onto that bandwagon.
Huh? How did I not answer your question? You asked why even go to Bush in terms of the current exit strategy. I answered you.
I find it hard to believe that the average American hates the way the timetable will be managed more than they hate Bush.
I don't see how that is any less of a powerful statement. I'd wager it'd be even more powerful to the average voter. Throwing Bush into the mix as an ally to Obama on the issue muddles the point trying to be made.
In the end LJ, you could probably make the same point as effectively by tying Iraq to McCain without mentioning Bush so that you run zero risk of contradiction. This is probably the safer play and I'd anticipate this is what you'll see out of the campaign going forward. They're getting to the point where the only play is the safe play.
Pretty soon Obama's camp is going to go into full out prevent defense.
We've already answered your question at least 4 different times.
It's not our problem you are a little slow.
That answered a question I didn't ask.
@ "we"
You third rate Obamanseed gulpers have officially become an organization? If so, you may want to recalibrate your weapons because I'm not attacking your hero. I'm asking why use a tactic that aligns you with the Antichrist.
Or should I say strategy . . .
Affirmative.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
