How damaging is McCain's not knowing how many houses he has?
- Thread starter Saab1911
- Start date
JuanCarlos
New member
Politician promises to run clean campaign, resorts to mudslinging? I'm shocked. If this campaign simply manages to be cleaner than previous ones, I'd be ecstatic.
But with McCain running the Ayers/Rezko ads, I think it might get pretty ugly. McCain has plenty of dirt to dig up as well, and I'm no believer in this "Obamessiah" figure you're speaking of...I'm confident he'll wind up grabbing a shovel.
Well, considering that all the money is in her name (as are all the houses), it's a stretch to say McCain paid for much of anything. And she was filthy rich when he married her. He's a trophy husband, really, though I'm sure being married to him has paid off at least a bit for her due to his political career. But to me he looks an awful lot like a wrinkly male Anna Nicole.
Not that any of this is relevant as to whether or not he should be president. But it is a bit amusing to me.
It's arguable that his being entirely out of touch with any of the issues facing a vast majority of Americans might be relevant, though. The man wasn't even willing to take a stab at trying to define any cutoff between "rich" and "middle class" when asked. You might suggest he was "above" getting into "class warfare," but I'd suggest that maybe a guy who has no idea how many homes his family owns, whose family spends more each year on housekeepers than a vast majority of Americans make, and a man who is able to give away a majority of the money he makes because he's married to his own sugar-momma might just not know off the top of his head what kind of cutoff is reasonable. He might need to consult wikipedia before having an idea where the top quintile or top 10% cutoffs are.
EDIT: My point being that a majority of Americans might find that relevant. Obama may be rich, but he seems to at least know what middle-class is.
grymster2007
New member
Pretty gray to me too. Lot's of variables there. $400K/yr might sound "wealthy", but other factors, such as age, location, how long one's been earning that much and whether there's anything in retirement or savings accounts make a huge difference.
I work at a college in one of the poorest counties in the nation. At one time it was ranked as the poorest. Approximately 60% of all our students not only get their tuition and books paid for by the feds but in fact get a check every semester to pay for their cell phone bill or whatever they wan to spend it on. The other 40% get at least 85% of their tuition paid. As part of our Continuing Education program we offer Truck Driving and graduate at least 10 students every two weeks, all paid for by the government including transportationto and from school. 90% of those will be offered jobs before they graduate paying $40K-$60K a year. Only 10% of those will take the jobs because they would rather sit at home and draw welfare.
For our welding program every student that completes it is already guaranteed a job at $40K per year. Any student that graduates from our 2-year programs are guaranteed aceptance in any state supported 4-year college in the state
I have to prepare the reports for the state and feds every semester and it really aggravates me on how many continue to abuse the system in a county with one of the highest unemployment rates of the state but absolutely refuse to take a job because they can get just as much sitting home drawing welfare. Then someone gets on here telling about how bad the economy is. One company finally closed up because we trained at least 6 people for every slot they had paying them to get trained and they couldn't keep enough workers to stay in business.
For our welding program every student that completes it is already guaranteed a job at $40K per year. Any student that graduates from our 2-year programs are guaranteed aceptance in any state supported 4-year college in the state
I have to prepare the reports for the state and feds every semester and it really aggravates me on how many continue to abuse the system in a county with one of the highest unemployment rates of the state but absolutely refuse to take a job because they can get just as much sitting home drawing welfare. Then someone gets on here telling about how bad the economy is. One company finally closed up because we trained at least 6 people for every slot they had paying them to get trained and they couldn't keep enough workers to stay in business.
The houses are Cindy McCains and are in a trust. (at least that's what's been reported) Other than Obama who give a rats back side how many houses he owns or doesn't own. It has nothing at all to do with his qualifications, or any candidates qualifications for that matter.
Our political systems is certainly admirable when dribble like this captivates the media and becomes an issue.
Our political systems is certainly admirable when dribble like this captivates the media and becomes an issue.
JuanCarlos
New member
It ain't that gray. For instance, $400K a year puts you in about the top 1% on household income. At that rate, location is irrelevant...I'm pretty sure there is no state or even metro area in this country where that's not top 10%. Not even NYC or SF or any other of the more expensive areas to live.
How long one is earning it is an issue, but considering even a yearlong contracting gig in Iraq doesn't run near that rate of pay I doubt many middle-class earners are going to see $400K in a year of income. Perhaps in inheritance, but not in income.
Can you even give me an example of a case where a middle class family would see that kind of income in a year, but not in the preceding or following years? I'm just not coming up with any. I'm confident any example would be a statistical outlier, anyway.
As for allowing for gray areas, that was possible since more than a simple numerical answer was allowed. For instance, Obama's answer included the qualifier "depending where you live" or some such...while still providing a number that covers the top quintile in pretty much every area of the country, and the top 5% or so nationwide.
First of all, BOTH candidates have far more money than the average American, but their wealth has nothing to do with this race. We live in a free country where you are free to make as much money as you are able to, so long as it's done legally. This issue is a very weak tactic, but I guess the Obama campaign doesn't have anything better at the moment.
JuanCarlos
New member
If nothing else, I think whether or not either candidate is can define (or is willing to) the middle class is marginally relevant, since at some point during their campaigns they're bound to get into the issue of raising/lowering taxes on the middle class.
Kinda hard to debate that point unless you're willing to at least loosely define who the middle class is. And "those who make less than five million" won't cut it.
Kinda hard to debate that point unless you're willing to at least loosely define who the middle class is. And "those who make less than five million" won't cut it.
22-rimfire
New member
Harry (aka Obama) has problems. Wait and see after the conventions. McCain has a very good chance of winning this election. The house thing is pretty irrelevant since his wife owns the properties and they keep their business separate. Of more importance is HOW Harry got his million dollar house in Chicago.
Uncle Ben said:
You're right sir. Do we want to hand the presidency to some loser living
under a bridge somewhere?
If we are to pick our best
, the candidates will be successful andmore than likely rich or at least affluent.
I thought Hussein was going to run a clean campaign. I guess he lied.
I thought Hussein was supposed to be a straight talking, honest person.
I guess that was a false impression as well.
JuanCarlos
New member
/facepalm
That's right, the fact that McCain (or rather, Sidney) is unable to even remotely identify the middle class is a non-issue, but Obama's middle name is such a burning topic that we will continue to address him by it even though he does not generally (or ever) go by it.
Note: 22-rimfire's use of Harry was actually kind of amusing, since that was a name he went by at one point.
22-rimfire
New member
I think the name "Harry" needs to catch on. It serves as a reminder of Obama's real past as well as a subtle reminder of his real middle name. Honestly, politics is a dirty business. I don't care what his middle name is. I have friends who have Hussein as a middle name.
Obama could run ads like "Give 'em hell Harry!" I'd rather see that then the endless stream of "change, change, change.... cha cha changes... wasn't that a song?
Obama could run ads like "Give 'em hell Harry!" I'd rather see that then the endless stream of "change, change, change.... cha cha changes... wasn't that a song?
I may have been wrong about this not having legs.
If so many people here are willing to offer such lame defenses of McCain, then it has hit a nerve. The democrats may just have lucked out.
Of course this just means they'll have to work that much harder to throw away the advantage.
If so many people here are willing to offer such lame defenses of McCain, then it has hit a nerve. The democrats may just have lucked out.
Of course this just means they'll have to work that much harder to throw away the advantage.
That he didn't have a ready number instantly of how many investment properties and family members' homes might be in his and Cindy's name, doesn't bug me. Hell, I'm not rich, but at one point owned a home in NY, leased a place I spent a significant part of the year in a neighboring state, and had a rental on LI. I also put down the downpayment on a family member's home so they could qualify, so techincally might have been tagged with that one. How many "homes" did i have? I dunno - I think one. But some might say four. In this environment, a candidate can't risk a bad answer others can spin another way.
But what will have legs:
Is Obama taking money from felons to pad his million-dollar home purchase, and letting his brother live in a shack in Nairobi. Maybe McCain married money, but he dam well didn't turn to crooks to lift him up in grand Chicago machine-politics style. THAT is gonna have legs. Let me tell you, there aren't many people in America that will drop a million on a house and not help get their 1/2 brother out of abject poverty, even if distant and removed. It's called compassion and we like to see that in folks. Obama's just evaporated in a shanty town in Kenya.
WWII pacific naval history is a fetish of mine. Vice Admiral McCain took over head of Fast Carriers, Pacific Fleet (alternately TF 58/38 depending upon the the top commander, Halsey or Spruance) in very late '44, after the Battle of Leyte Gulf. The incomparable Marc Mitscher commanded and built up Fast Carriers, Pacific Fleet during most of '44 and was in command during the fantasticly enormous battles of The Philippine Sea and Leyte Gulf.
This is not to put down Admiral McCain - he was a naval aviation pioneer, and commander of naval forces in some of the dark days of WWII.
JuanCarlos
New member
Yeah, that's my defense of McCain on the entire thing...there was no right answer. Get the answer "right," (numerically) and it still going to make you look wealthy and out of touch...dude's family owns a lot of houses/homes, by any count. Get the answer "wrong" (numerically), and it still makes you look out of touch, and like you don't know just how out of touch you are. Fail to answer (which he went with), same as above.
Now, the best answer, in hindsight, would probably have been something along the lines of (after taking a few moments to gather himself) "My wife and I own a couple investment properties, and a couple homes that family members live in, so it's not an easy question. If I had to answer now, I'd probably say <insert number, probably 4 or 5>. Depending how you look at it, the number could be larger."
I mean, unless the guy doing the interview is going to be a jerk and cut you off (which I doubt), that's probably the best and least damaging we could go with. Maybe insert some "my family has been blessed" crap to finish it off somewhere in there.
The worst possible answer? Probably the one he gave.
Now, obviously the answer above is easy to come up with in hindsight. I'll not pretend I'd have done so well, put in his shoes. Then again, I'm not running for president. And if he's this thrown off, and this unable to think on his feet, during some random interview, how's he going to do at 3am when Putin is on the line?
<cue dramatic music>
Yes, that last part was largely joking.
Obama's links to Rezko are only marginally more solid than McCain's links to Keating, and the two will probably play about the same in 30 second TV spots, considering how little of either story will get told during the average voter's attention span. Probably a wash there.
As for his half-brother, if his half-brother gets on TV and says he's happy and he supports his brother and that he's a great guy, how's that going to turn out? Didn't see the interview tonight (I'm assuming that's the brother they were talking about interviewing later on CNN when I was driving home...apparently that one does have some legs), so I have no idea what happened there. Guess we'll see.
Then you add the fact that a lot of people honestly don't think that you have all that much obligation to take care of family that is that far removed. Did Obama ever live with this half-brother? Do they have any real relationship? You can try to play it up as Obama abandoning his family, but only a subset of people are going to buy into that (and let's be honest, a lot of people just aren't going to care one way or the other).
It may hurt, sure, but I don't think any of this combined is going to do the same level of damage as McCain's slip-up.
Expect a short-term gain from Obama, with it being largely irrelevant long-term (though a turn by either or both campaigns for the nasty will certainly have long-term effects).
*shrug*
Just the view from where I'm sitting, and from a sampling of liberal and conservative blogs and forums...as well as talking to a couple people about it.
I don't know about that. I'm maybe too Southern in background to feel that way.
I think in the end neither thing will resonate with the core constituency of either candidate. I also sample both sides of the blogosphere and don't see it making traction with anyone who isn't already committed.
I'm not terribly concerned about which way the election will go - it's just fun to watch it play out!
JuanCarlos
New member
Like I said a while ago, I think the only reason it will have any traction (and, admittedly, probably only short-term) is because of how the housing market is at the moment. That's what makes it resonate a bit. And that's a large part of why the hits on Obama (Rezko/Ayers/Random-African-Brother) seem to fall flat.
It's nothing earth-shattering. But in an election that (as I mention in the poll thread) is likely to be pretty darn close, little crap like this might end up mattering in the end. Did McCain lose 1,000 or 2,000 votes in Ohio on this one? Maybe more? Who knows.
It's nothing earth-shattering. But in an election that (as I mention in the poll thread) is likely to be pretty darn close, little crap like this might end up mattering in the end. Did McCain lose 1,000 or 2,000 votes in Ohio on this one? Maybe more? Who knows.