Might be fun to start a Presidential candidate gaffe thread.

So far, and it's early, I've seen two major and one minor gaffe.

Most agree the Obama-sending troops into Pakistan was damaging.

McCain's "Bomb Iran" song didn't exactly go over too well.

And just recently Romney kind of lost his temper on a radio talk show, almost shouting, "I'm not running as a Mormon!"

I'm sure these will continue to occur on a regular basis, and I think in today's media world, very important and critical as to who eventually will be elected.

Hopefully this won't turn into a rep vs dem thread, just a running log on the gaffes from both parties. Or is that an unrealistic expectation?

Most agree the Obama-sending troops into Pakistan was damaging.

I wouldn't agree - it was just an opportunity for the other candidates to attack him.

What's the alternative, anyway? If the US has actionable intelligence that al Qaeda in Pakistan is actively planning new, specific attacks on the US that we sit back and say, "Bummer!" then, if Pakistan won't act against them? The presumption is that we don't have a president like Bush who cherry picks the intelligence he wants to make a case for a war he'd already decided on...

Andrew

Andrew, I respect the right to your opinion. But when both republicans and democrats both consider this idea wrong, then it probably is a gaffe, at the very least, a "political gaffe". I understand, both parties want to destroy Obama, but Romney said it best, "ill-timed, and ill-conceived." I maintain this was a gaffe in the true sense of the word, and will hurt him. More gaffes to come, from both sides...let's keep track!

Redford, did you read this?

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/08/01/weighing_in_on_obama.html?hp id=topnews

Sounds like foreign policy experts don't think it was a "gaffe" at all; their quibbles aren't with his basic assertion (maybe over the size of a brigade). What these people think matters more to me than the criticism of political rivals trying to score points.

Andrew

I'm with andrew. A gaffe pretty much has to be of the knucklehead variety. Our president lowered the bar.

Will any of them measure up to Howard Dean's foot-in-mouth primal scream the last go-around? Yeah, he showed to do well under pressure.

The "Dean scream" was manufactured by the media, first of all, and second, his campaign was essentially finished before it happened.

If you watch video from the audience at the Dean supporter event and hear Dean's "scream" as the end of a speech intended to rally supporters, it doesn't even raise an eyebrow. Only when mic'ed for the TV cameras and broadcast in a tiny clip does it seem different. Even then, I saw him do it live on the night of the Iowa vote and I saw nothing unusual about it (but, I had been listening to his speech for 10 minutes, and the "scream" was at the end). No one else did either, for a day or two, until people opposed to Dean started talking about it and exaggerating it.

Andrew

I think the Dan Quayle stuff is the best.

"What a waste it is to lose one's mind, or never have a mind."

Dan Quayle, mangling the NAACP's slogan, "A mind is a terrible thing to waste".

Herb

Yeah, you know the late night talk show hosts were sad when Quayle left office in 1993 - he was a constant stream of material for them.

Andrew

I think Hillary's comment in the debate about not speaking what's on your mind is a gaffe. Mark my words, that comment will come back to her at some point.

Dab Quayle knew when he made a gaffe. George Bush knows only after being informed by his staff he just made a gaffe. Huge difference.

BTW, Quayle most likely would have not led us into war with a lie.


Wow, only George W Bush can make me come to the defense of Republicans I otherwise have low opinions of, -- Nixon, Reagan, Ashcroft, and now, Quayle.

Does Elizabeth Edwards get a pass for, "John isn't a woman, and he isn't a black"...sure, she isn't the candidate, but questionable choice of words, IMHO.

As for Dean, I heard a recent speech in my area. You could tell that he tried very hard to maintain a constant level of tone, speech, and no real excitement in his voice. Hmmm. The media may be wrong, but they have a tremendous power to change how candidates, or in this case, former candidates act. It all seems to be like a Broadway production.

Redford writes:
Does Elizabeth Edwards get a pass for, "John isn't a woman, and he isn't a black"...sure, she isn't the candidate, but questionable choice of words, IMHO.

Well, was she wrong? She may be blunt and perhaps politically incorrect, but I think she was speaking the truth. There are unwritten rules for how people are perceived due to their gender or race. It's unfair to say John Edwards wouldn't be the best advocate for women or minorities just because he happens to be a white man. Abraham Lincoln was a pretty good advocate for the black man, and he was not only white but also something of a racist (like most other whites of his era).

Andrew

Too bad about Dean. His passion is something great.

(and there is nothing wrong with a raw expression of it either)

We can now add Rudy Il Duce to the "oopsy" club. America's favorite hat rack put his expensive shoe between his bleached teeth and gave it a good suck:

"Republican presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani said Friday that he misspoke when he said he spent as much time, if not more, at ground zero exposed to the same health risks as workers combing the site after the Sept. 11 attacks.

"I think I could have said it better," he told nationally syndicated radio host Mike Gallagher. "You know, what I was saying was, 'I'm there with you.'"

The former New York mayor upset some firefighters and police officers when he said Thursday in Cincinnati that he was at ground zero "as often, if not more, than most of the workers."

"I was there working with them. I was exposed to exactly the same things they were exposed to. So in that sense, I'm one of them," he told reporters at a Los Angeles Dodgers-Cincinnati Reds baseball game.

Fire and police officials responded angrily, saying Giuliani did not do the same work as those involved in the rescue, recovery and cleanup from the 2001 terrorist attacks, which left many workers sick and injured.

On Friday, Giuliani said he was trying to show his concern for the workers' health.

"What I was trying to say yesterday is that I empathize with them, because I feel like I have that same risk," he said.

Giuliani's explanation further angered his ground zero critics, prompting several to issue a statement demanding an apology.

"He is such a liar, because the only time he was down there was for photo ops with celebrities, with politicians, with diplomats," said deputy fire chief Jimmy Riches, who spent months digging for his firefighter son.

"On 9/11 all he did was run. He got that soot on him, and I don't think he's taken a shower since."

Harold Schaitberger, president of the International Association of Fire Fighters, a union that fiercely opposes Giuliani, said he doubted Giuliani misspoke.

"I think he was simply showing what his true character is — a self-absorbed, self-deluded promoter who got caught and is now just simply trying to backtrack," Schaitberger said."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070810/ap_on_el_pr/giuliani_ground_zero

The US has a policy, to go into pakistan, or wherever we find terrorists, however its political expedient not to go bragging to our allies , we're going to invade them.

Maybe Rudy can redeem himself by going out to Hanford and mopping up that radiation leak sans protective gear.

"however its political expedient not to go bragging to our allies , we're going to invade them."

You mean like when George W Bush said that all options are on the table when it comes to Iran?

Iran isnt an allie, and by saying all the options are on the table, that might just force Iran to moderate their actions.

You mean the way they've moderated their actions since Bush called them part of the "Axis of Evil" in 2002?

On the contrary, I believe the more we threaten Iran with careless public statements, the more power we give to the extremists in Iran like Ahmadinejad, who will have an easier time getting support for continuing their nuclear program. Iran doesn't need public threats; they know quite well what we are capable of, and we have ways to convey messages to their leadership privately through third parties if we wish.

Andrew

What's an "allie"??

A new diet pill.