Talk:John McCain 2008 Presidential Campaign

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Kidrade's comments

Kidrade, it's really offensive when you wrote, This page brought to you by Wikipedia and your local copy/paste shortcuts I used wikopedia as a source and that's all. Since you wrote that literally seconds after this article was published, I have that feeling that you just briefly glanced at it at saw it look similar to wikopedia's article. Read though both of them, they are clearly different. Chippeterson


Is the endorsements section really notable? Now that the nominees are decided, just about every Republican in the nation will endorse and McCain and just about every Democrat will endorse Obama. That's the way political parties work. Occasionally someone will make an endorsement of a candidate from another party, and those are about the only ones that are notable enough to deserve separate mention (Lieberman, being a pseudo-Democrat, fits the bill this year, as Zell Miller did 4 years ago). It was a different issue during the primaries, but they're over. McCain will have the support of most Republicans; is it necessary to list them all? Fyezall 09:44, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

I would tend to agree. This appears to be dated. Perhaps a mention of Lieberman would be warranted or others of a similar unexpected nature. Learn together 12:17, 17 July 2008 (EDT)


I was looking for a similar article on Obama, but I don't see one. Perhaps frequent contributors here would want to create one? Learn together 12:18, 17 July 2008 (EDT)

I believe that would require a cleanup of the general Barack Obama article, which is currently locked. --Jareddr 12:28, 17 July 2008 (EDT)


I am concerned this section was starting to sound like a Democratic blog. Misspeaking on the Czech Republic, when the previous name was burned into the brain often during the Cold War and the current one is hardly ever mentioned, is hardly earth shattering and most people born before the Berlin Wall came down would understand that.

Apart from making an issue to segregate McCain as behind the times, whether or not he uses computers doesn't appear to be that important to being a President or any aspect of daily Presidential function. It's pretty much making an insinuation without showing why such knowledge is necessary for job performance. Learn together 12:24, 17 July 2008 (EDT)

Misspeaking once I could understand, but it was obviously important enough that his campaign released a statement correcting the mistake. Doing it a second time for someone who criticizes his opponent for foreign policy experience seems a bit important. It feeds into the meme that McCain either makes repeated verbal gaffes and, as you said, the previous name was burned into the brain during the Cold War, which is over. It questions whether McCain is a 21st century leader, and the fact that he can't use a computer also becomes relevant. A president HAS to be able to receive and send e-mail. I would expect the Leader of the Free World to have at least as much computer knowledge as most ten-year olds. --Jareddr 12:31, 17 July 2008 (EDT)
McCain has a long history of being a very prolific and open speaker, and I've never before heard the idea that he makes repeated verbal gaffes except your inclusion of it in this article. Does Obama suddenly get more foreign policy experience because McCain used a previous name that had a good deal of important history?
If a President is sitting in front of his computer all day to send and receive email then he's not doing his job. Aides handle that. As long as he has a pager and a cell phone the President's part is covered. Learn together 13:02, 17 July 2008 (EDT)
And the Phil Gramm statement was interesting and important as a surrogate of the McCain campaign. I don't know how much you follow the presidential election politics, but the statements of surrogates are regularly analyzed and attacked by both campaigns. To wit, McCain's campaign sent out 10-20 press releases/statements against Obama for the comments made by Wesley Clark. Surrogates are regularly used as alternate faces to the campaign in order to reach certain electoral segments. Wesley Clark was used for his military background, Carly Fiorina is used for economic and women's matters, Phil Gramm, as campaign finance co-chair, was used for financial matters, etc. The remarks of surrogates hold nearly as much importance for BOTH sides as the remarks of the candidates themselves.--Jareddr 12:37, 17 July 2008 (EDT)
Statements of surrogates are more open for scrutiny when they are used to attack an opponent, such as Clark or Ferraro. That was not the case here and McCain clarified his position. Learn together 13:02, 17 July 2008 (EDT)
I've never heard that rationale before (appropriateness of scrutiny), but I'll defer on that point. I assume then comments by Mitt Romney, Dr. Ada Fisher, Senator Lindsey Graham, and James Woolsey can be discussed instead? --Jareddr 13:44, 17 July 2008 (EDT)

Try to keep the section to issues as much as possible, especially in unexpected areas. So for instance, Dobson's criticisms are noteable, because they is from a group that normally supports Republicans and shows a concern with changes from the usual Republican platform, or at least what Conservatives have been accustomed to. Questions on whether or not McCain filled out a survey, aren't in the same ballpark. Learn together 14:13, 17 July 2008 (EDT)

This whole page sounds like a democrat blog because Jareddr provides the majority of liberal contributions. I will be going this this page making the necessary corrections. It doen't have to be a JM campaign endorsement but it doesn't need to be a liberal slighted article either.--jp 08:01, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

Yes, we'd hate to have actual legitimate documented criticism under a "Criticism" section for John McCain. It appears so non-encyclopedic when compared to the Obama article! Make it easier, Jpatt, you could just copy-and-paste from McCain's campaign website so it isn't so "liberal slighted". Oh, and almost forgot, an article is "slanted" not "slighted". --Jareddr 11:03, 8 August 2008 (EDT)
Your attitude is annoying. Keep it up and I will just move down the block list, next stop 3-days. Your grammar etiquette is so perfect but your beliefs are a disgrace. Let me correct you, slighted in the dictionary is "To treat with discourteous reserve or inattention" and "To do negligently or thoughtlessly". Slanted is bias. It could be either word in your case.--jp 11:16, 8 August 2008 (EDT)
While I know the definition of "slight", I won't explain why it is grammatically incorrect in your usage, for worries that you'll take further offense at my grammar etiquette. If you want to change the McCain article, I encourage you to do so for the better. Of course, be sure to use references for your information, and perhaps make suggestions on the talk page first if you want to delete something that's properly referenced so that editors may discuss the changes and ensure the best product CP can provide. --Jareddr 11:25, 8 August 2008 (EDT)
Try applying the suggestions above to your own posts in the future.--jp 11:56, 8 August 2008 (EDT)
I'll take that as a helpful suggestion, rather than as a slight. --Jareddr 13:08, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

Votes in the Senate

When did John McCain miss 51% of his votes in the Senate? I am assuming that is over an unspecified period of time and not his 20+ years, true? Learn together 13:19, 17 July 2008 (EDT)

A quick Google search yielded the reference Senate members who missed votes. It relates to the current Congress, so perhaps it should be moved to his 2008 campaign site. And thanks for bringing it forward--the number is no longer 51%, but rather 62.6%. --Jareddr 13:41, 17 July 2008 (EDT)
That should be fine to update including the timeline and the source, but keep it in perspective as well. Obviously the numbers for McCain and Obama will continue to rise. Learn together 14:16, 17 July 2008 (EDT)