Grassroots Motorsports

Register Log in to GRM
- Community

Birthdays
Recently on the Classic Motorsports forums

Subscribe get a full year for only $23.95 Sample Free Test Drive—no strings attached

Login to post Forums » Off-topic discussion » Tacky-Tacky-Tacky

1 2

Sept. 3, 2008 3:22 p.m. RX Reven' New Reader

I understand that Barak Obama is scheduled to go on Fox News Channel’s Bill O’ Reilly show on Thursday, September 4th.

You know, the McCain camp demonstrated class, decency, & courtesy by waiting until the DNC convention had finished before announcing their VP pick. They didn’t accidentally on purpose leak the news or do anything like that to disrupt the Democrats event.

It appears no such grace comes from the Obama camp which honestly scares me given that he has about a 50% chance of being the president in the very near future.

I’d appreciate it if an Obama supporter would chime in with an explanation of why this isn’t disappointing behavior because right now, I can only say that this is very unbecoming of a president.
Sept. 3, 2008 3:26 p.m. Strizzo Dork

the truth is, o'reilly is planning to tear obama a new one, and the obama camp probably thinks it will get the least attention during the rnc.
Sept. 3, 2008 3:27 p.m. Jensenman UltimaDork

I may have to TiVo that.
Sept. 3, 2008 3:34 p.m. GregTivo Reader

I don't understand why the RNC didn't bother holding some major event during the DNC convention. Must be because they were afraid they wouldn't get attention. I assume Strizzo is probably correct. Obama can go on O'rielly, get yelled at, check that interview off his list, all while the media is not paying attention, therefore not analyzing.

I seriously believe decor has little to do with either campaigns strategies. "Mud is meant to be flung" is a politicians motto.
Sept. 3, 2008 4:15 p.m. Tim Baxter Online Editor

According to William Casey, who knows a bit about this sort of thing, McCain should have leaked Palin's name last week during the DNC. Two-way win... they steal thunder, and get Palin out in front of the media and let the circus die down before they officially pick her.
Sept. 3, 2008 4:23 p.m. doitover Reader

Interesting point of view. I remember McCain's campaign making several jabs during the DNC to the point of the same comments being made. It hardly matters, this campaign has been going on for over a year.

How about that Pallin? The city that she was mayor of and requested earmarks for, It has a surplus when she came into office and even with the earmarks and raised taxes it had a deficit of something like $3700 per resident when she left. She's just as good as Bush!
Sept. 3, 2008 4:26 p.m. Salanis Dork

Tim Baxter wrote:

According to William Casey, who knows a bit about this sort of thing, McCain should have leaked Palin's name last week during the DNC. Two-way win... they steal thunder, and get Palin out in front of the media and let the circus die down before they officially pick her.

They needed time to scrub her Wikipedia entry.
Sept. 3, 2008 4:46 p.m. RX Reven' New Reader

GregTivo wrote:

I don't understand why the RNC didn't bother holding some major event during the DNC convention. Must be because they were afraid they wouldn't get attention. I assume Strizzo is probably correct. Obama can go on O'rielly, get yelled at, check that interview off his list, all while the media is not paying attention, therefore not analyzing.

I seriously believe decor has little to do with either campaigns strategies. "Mud is meant to be flung" is a politicians motto.

What don’t you understand??? There’s a whole litany of tradition behind the presidential election process. For instance, as a gesture of kindness, the winner of each party’s primary election historically has drawn from their campaign fund to cover any debts owed by the runner-up…Hillary was two million in the hole when she conceded the party nomination to Barak but he just left her holding the bag. Another tradition is to show respect for the opposing party by not calling any attention to your campaign during their convention. Again, Barak doesn’t recognize these traditions.

It’s not like any laws are being broken & I’m sure many people (like yourself) are either unaware that Barak frequently ignores tradition or commend him for ignoring tradition as part of the whole “Change” message so it just is what it is.

BTW, Décor is like furniture & curtains & stuff…Decorum is like etiquette & politeness & stuff.
Sept. 3, 2008 5:46 p.m. ignorant UberDork

I really think it's funny that Obama has tried from the beginning in running a good non mud slinging campagin. Mccain has been slinging mud from the beginning.. Once obama starts with a small misstep.. he's suddenly tacky?
Sept. 3, 2008 6:25 p.m. GregTivo Reader

RX Reven' wrote:

What don’t you understand??? There’s a whole litany of tradition behind the presidential election process. For instance, as a gesture of kindness, the winner of each party’s primary election historically has drawn from their campaign fund to cover any debts owed by the runner-up…Hillary was two million in the hole when she conceded the party nomination to Barak but he just left her holding the bag. Another tradition is to show respect for the opposing party by not calling any attention to your campaign during their convention. Again, Barak doesn’t recognize these traditions.

It’s not like any laws are being broken & I’m sure many people (like yourself) are either unaware that Barak frequently ignores tradition or commend him for ignoring tradition as part of the whole “Change” message so it just is what it is.

BTW, Décor is like furniture & curtains & stuff…Decorum is like etiquette & politeness & stuff.

Whoa...someone is a bit peevish right now.

No, I was not aware of the tradition behind all this. I can't imagine why any of these traditions matter in any case, but apparently some people do care. I doubt voters will notice however.
Sept. 3, 2008 7:01 p.m. fastEddie Dork

Yeah, its easy for the Dem's to run a "clean" campaign, the liberal "news" and other media does all the mud slinging for them!
Sept. 4, 2008 9:21 a.m. RX Reven' New Reader

Hi GregTivo,

I didn’t know what “peevish” meant so I looked it up and yah I guess you’re right, I did sound a little peevish…sorry.
Sept. 4, 2008 11:16 a.m. ignorant UberDork

fastEddie wrote:

Yeah, its easy for the Dem's to run a "clean" campaign, the liberal "news" and other media does all the mud slinging for them!

liberal media is the code word for.. "OMG they found that dirt we hid under the carpet"
Sept. 4, 2008 11:23 a.m. belteshazzar Dork

Bill O'Reilly can do what he wants, and Barry can do what he wants.

IF the timing of this interview was a conspiracy, it'd be a pretty weak one any way you measure it.

In my opinion whichever XXX-national convention went second had a huge advantage. The party that goes first sets the bar, the one that follows jumps over it. Which I think is ironic since the RNC has been somewhat underwhelming to me so far.
Sept. 4, 2008 11:48 a.m. Strizzo Dork

O'Reilly said yesterday on his show that the obama people told him they wanted to have the inteview today in hopes to take some thunder away from McCain's speech later tonight.

will it work? i doubt it. it'll be interesting, that's for sure
Sept. 4, 2008 12:05 p.m. Gimp Dork

O'Reilly is the most trustworthy and honest source too, with no goals of his own.
Sept. 4, 2008 12:13 p.m. oldopelguy HalfDork

He should do the interview tonight, then air it over the weekend. It's not going to be live anyway.
Sept. 4, 2008 12:17 p.m. ignorant UberDork

http://www.ajc.com/printedition/content/printedition/2008/09/03/tucked.html

Only brought up because it rails on O'Reilly and Rush....
Sept. 4, 2008 12:35 p.m. Salanis Dork

ignorant wrote:

http://www.ajc.com/printedition/content/printedition/2008/09/03/tucked.html

Only brought up because it rails on O'Reilly and Rush....

Interesting article. It belongs more in the "Do As I Say..." thread though.
Sept. 4, 2008 12:59 p.m. doitover Reader

If that were true why would the go to Oreilly? He could just give another speech to 70,000 people. That might make the news.

McCain's speech is going to be a snoozer, they could only hope for something ot blame the lack of interest on.

Strizzo wrote:

O'Reilly said yesterday on his show that the obama people told him they wanted to have the inteview today in hopes to take some thunder away from McCain's speech later tonight.

will it work? i doubt it. it'll be interesting, that's for sure
Sept. 4, 2008 1:08 p.m. ignorant UberDork

There is a tendency in the media to kick ourselves, cringe and withdraw, when we are criticized. But I hope my colleagues stand strong in this case: it is important for the public to know that Palin raised taxes as governor, supported the Bridge to Nowhere before she opposed it, pursued pork-barrel projects as mayor, tried to ban books at the local library and thinks the war in Iraq is "a task from God." The attempts by the McCain campaign to bully us into not reporting such things are not only stupidly aggressive, but unprofessional in the extreme.

http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/09/angry_amateurs.html
Sept. 4, 2008 1:13 p.m. Strizzo Dork

doitover wrote:

If that were true why would the go to Oreilly? He could just give another speech to 70,000 people. That might make the news.

McCain's speech is going to be a snoozer, they could only hope for something ot blame the lack of interest on.

Strizzo wrote:

O'Reilly said yesterday on his show that the obama people told him they wanted to have the inteview today in hopes to take some thunder away from McCain's speech later tonight.

will it work? i doubt it. it'll be interesting, that's for sure

because O'Reilly has been publicly calling him out on his campaign largely ignoring requests for Obama to come on the show, because he wants to ask O about lots of things he hasn't officially answered, or always skirts around.
Sept. 4, 2008 1:14 p.m. Strizzo Dork

Gimp wrote:

O'Reilly is the most trustworthy and honest source too, with no goals of his own.

and of course none of the liberal media would ever do anything like that, or edit an interview to make it look like they said things that they didn't, or to show statements completely out of context, would they?
Sept. 4, 2008 2:02 p.m. Jensenman UltimaDork

Gimp wrote:

O'Reilly is the most trustworthy and honest source too, with no goals of his own.

Dang. That makes him just like Al Franken.
Sept. 4, 2008 2:05 p.m. Salanis Dork

Jensenman wrote:

Gimp wrote:

O'Reilly is the most trustworthy and honest source too, with no goals of his own.

Dang. That makes him just like Al Franken.

Except that: Al Franken is generally more funny and less angry; Al Franken readily admits he's biased. Al Franken is more likely to cite his sources.

I guess that makes O'Reilly more like Michael Moore. Only without being fat or having a neck-beard.

1 2

You'll need to log in to post.