I will be glad when the Democratic nomination fight is over, so we can focus more on the general election. Obama and Clinton are getting free rides on their far left platforms, while being free to frame the public perception about John McCain with lies.
Something I've been hearing for awhile now, but has really picked up steam in recent days, is that McCain would be a "third term of George Bush," and that McCain is no longer the "maverick" that he used to be and that he has been "hijacked" by the right wing. What they mean by that is all lies.
They mean that McCain would represent a continuation of Bush's "failed policy in Iraq," when, in fact, we only started to see successes in post-invasion Iraq when Bush's policies matched what McCain had been saying all along, about increased troop levels and holding gained territory and so on.
They mean that McCain "wants to stay in Iraq indefinintely," which as we all know is false. This is the basis for the DNC ad, which falsely implies that McCain thinks being at war for 100 is acceptable, when in fact, McCain said precisely the opposite.
They mean that McCain is in favor of tax cuts for the rich (that is, extending existing cuts), even though he voted, and spoke out, against those tax cuts previously. But they are entirely aware of the fact that McCain will not vote for raising taxes -- especially when the economy is bad -- even if he was against the cut in the first place. Indeed, if he voted to raise taxes now, he would be pandering.
They mean that McCain is "in favor of torture," because he voted to not force the CIA to follow the Army Field Manual. That's about as honest as saying that I am a vegetarian because I don't eat bear meat. The Army Field Manual is not the only means to be against torture. He has steadfastly been opposed to torture, but just thinks, and for good reason, that the Army Field Manual is not the best tool to use for the CIA. He has reiterated -- and the law backs him up -- that the CIA is not allowed to use torture.
They mean that McCain panders to "right-wing Christians," simply because he has talked to them without attacking them. Apparently it is OK for Obama to want to do that with Iran and North Korea, but not for McCain to want to do that with Americans. Frankly, in 2000, I thought McCain was being extremely immature when he attacked some on the "religious right," and am glad that he has grown. You can be cordial and even friendly to people you disagree with.
They mean that McCain has "flip-flopped" on immigration. This is not true, at all. In all of his public speeches, McCain has never said he was wrong about immigration (much to the chagrin of many conservatives). What he has said is that he recognizes that his plan is politically infeasible. There's too much opposition. He hasn't changed his mind about what is best, but he realizes he needs to change his actions in order to make progress. This is what an intelligent politician does.
Pretty much everything that the left is saying about McCain is lies. It's not unexepcted, of course, but it is disappointing. As with the AARP in the previous post ... is honesty too much to ask? Maybe it is.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at May 09, 2008 09:38 AM | Email ThisO-brother, did you fail history? In WWII, we send 10.000's of men into fighting Japan & Germany and if anyone tried to stop us, we blew it up. We didn't have some stupid group telling us to be nice to the bad guys. I could go on & on, but why. Your a fool.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on May 9, 2008 10:13 AMWe also didn't have the UN putting the brakes on everything.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on May 9, 2008 10:21 AMCrawl back under your rock.
Posted by: jimg on May 9, 2008 10:26 AMAnd you and the "experts" know this how? Because some Slate article told you this? Please, oh please show us the proof of this.
Regardless, they are there now, and that makes victory in Iraq of the utmost importance, and we need to finish the job, not cut and run.
Posted by: Palouse on May 9, 2008 10:33 AMbad guys stay THEY has nukes
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on May 9, 2008 10:38 AM"In less time than we have been at war in Iraq, America defeated the combined might of imperial Japan and Nazi Germany. Al Quaida now runs the streets in Iraq. Bin Laden is still at large after almost 7 years. The Taliban are surging in Afghanistan. McCain is incompetent to be commander in chief. He supported Bush lock-step in all these areas."
You are lying. I already demonstrated how this is a lie. McCain has OPPOSED Bush on most of the strategy that has been employed since the invasion. Please stop lying.
"Army medic - So why didn't Bush/McCain send enough troops to do the job? Answer: incompetence."
Um. McCain is on the record, consistently, for YEARS, saying we should be sending more troops into Iraq. He had no control over it. Bush did. Please stop lying.
"Bin Laden still at large. incompetence."
More lies: anyone who claims that they could have gotten Bin Laden -- as Kerry and Edwards and Wes Clark did -- are lying. They cannot know whether they would have been successful. Please stop lying.
Posted by: pudge on May 9, 2008 10:38 AMOne thing is for sure. McCain is no GW.
When it comes to Iraq? I don't know if he will change anything. For everything else????? I'm not crazy about his border ideas I'll say that.
Now as far as our armed forces go in numbers. That blame starts with Bush SR. He bought into the great peace deal after the fall of Russia. When Clinton came along they went into overdrive and cut them by huge numbers.
Then 2001 hit.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on May 9, 2008 10:47 AM1. Low taxes
2. Low unemployment
3. Stable "real" economy (sorry rich guys, but you have to work for money now).
4. Cheaper housing on horizon
5. Decrease in terror
6. More stable world situation
7. Innovative and successful energy policies
8. Quick response to disaster
In fact, the only reason I will vote for McCain is that he ultimately will carry on the Bush policies.
O-gezzz, go back to drinking your coolaid.
Just for the fun of it Don. Goggle the Prez of the US in WWI. You want to talk about someone who shut off free speech.
and Don what prez put people in camps just because they had been from Japan.
What makes me worry about McCain. He hasn't said much about this bailout for home owners. (another bad idea)
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on May 9, 2008 11:03 AMFaster than a speeding bullet for sure. Good to know what the whackos are thinking these days.
Let's see. Too old (but with more energy than his younger opponents) but in lockstep with Bush (yet he fought Bush all the way).
Posted by: swatter on May 9, 2008 11:05 AMIf you are so worried about a shortage of troops in Iraq, why don't you sign up instead of hanging around here whining?
Posted by: NW_Denizen on May 9, 2008 11:12 AM"McBush (sic) will also continue the Bush policies of secret arrests and imprisonment of Americans without trials or lawyers, spying on the library books of Americans and wire-tapping decent, law-abiding citizens including intercepting email without a warrant."
None of this is happening. You are lying, Don. You cannot give me a single example of ANY of this happening now (and some of it never happened AT ALL, like the library books thing; and intercepting email and phone calls without a warrant was operative under Clinton, by the way). I defy you to even TRY to come up with an example of any of those things happening now, such that they could be "continued."
"Bush and McCain have wiped their boots on the constitution they swore to uphold and defend."
Oh please, do not pretend you care about the Constitution. MOST of the Democratic platform, and the policies of Obama and Clinton, facially violate the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution, which prohibits the federal government from doing things the Constitution does not give it specific power to do (such as controlling health care, retirement, employment, and so on).
I opposed Bush on some measures -- which are no longer in effect, despite your lies to the contrary -- that I believed violated Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights. But the Democratic platform itself pushes for violating the Tenth Amendment all over the place, and also the Second Amendment (pushes for a renewal of the unconstitutional "Assault Weapons Ban"), the Fifth Amendment (pushes for a national hate crimes law), and more. Not to mention that the liberal explanations of the First Amendment's establishment clause, the Eighth Amendment's cruel/unusual clause in regard to capital punishment, the Fourth Amendment grant of "privacy" as a defense for abortion, and so on are totally fictional. And they pretend the Ninth Amendment, like the Tenth, doesn't even exist.
"Do you want to continue to live in a police state?"
Democrats do: they violate my rights every day, under threat of taking everything I own or putting me in jail. How is that not a police state?
Posted by: pudge on May 9, 2008 11:14 AMHow long can we afford to keep paying billions of dollars for an unpopular war? Maybe the Iraqi's can pay to keep us there. =)
We cannot afford not to. If/when the Iran situation comes to a head, Iraq will be our primary point of attack. By that time, Israel will have already been obliterated. It's scary, but that could be a reality in our lifetimes.
Maybe the Iraqi's can pay to keep us there.
No problem here.
Posted by: Palouse on May 9, 2008 11:27 AMSecondly, some of what you say are lies, aren't lies, but political frameworks. It is not unlike you stating "far-left platforms." It is encompassing a political thought into a saying that is meant to sway voters. Some of the "facts" you stated are incorrect, however. For example on the "rich" tax cuts, McCain has stated that he is now in favor of making them permanent. He has also stated (see his economic plan) that he "...has also long sought permanent and immediate reform of the estate tax, and supports raising the exemption from taxation on estates up to $10 million while cutting the tax rate to 15 percent." This is an additional "tax cut" for the rich. The tried and true response from Bush and Republicans is to trot out the family farmer. Excuse me, I grew up on the farm in the Midwest, the federal estate tax is way above (currently) the family farmer. Most larger farms (even family-owned, but several farms combined), have incorporated, so this is a red herring with regards to the estate tax. Should the level be adjusted for inflation? Yes, but it doesn't mean the tax rate needs cutting.
Now, McCain's idea of requiring 3/5ths majority on raising taxes may be a good idea, applauded here, no doubt, and I do like his call for flatter taxes and call for Middle Class tax cuts. Obama has also called for Middle Class tax cuts, but also doesn't have rose colored glasses on when it comes to Social Security and Medicare and has called for raising those limits, which would hit only upper-middle class voters (e.g., his own demographic), since the current rate is close to $100K per individual (not family as some Republicans like to cloud the issue).
With regards to the War, I do believe the DNC has exaggerated McCain's statement (like I am sure the RNC will not exaggerrate or use any Obama's statements in a negative light), but it doesn't exclude the fact that McCain doesn't have an exit strategy from Iraq. He has been right that Rumsfeld's original plan was wrong. Rumsfeld obviously didn't read the Powell doctrine of using overwhelming force and not entering into battles you weren't intending on winning/completing. So, on this point McCain is right. He is wrong however that (1) Al Quaeda was in Iraq in the first place, (2) that Shite Iran is funding and training Sunni based Al Quaeda, and (3) that we have to defer to the weak Iraqi government and not pull out until all the pieces are in place. To put America's foriegn policy at the mercy of a weak Iraqi government's whims, is inexcusable. This isn't a plan to wait until the Iraqi government to get its act together. The Iraqi government needs to be prodded into action. This is what Obama is stating. We have other military obligations that we are not meeting. We have an overextended military that couldn't begin to address a conflict in another region in the world. To put the military at the mercy of a weak and ineffective Iraqi government weakens our security. McCain needs to come up with an exit strategy/philosophy or he will lose this issue.
With regard to torture, I do believe McCain has caved to the Bushites in the party on this issue, just as he is caving on the GI bill. The McCain of 2000, even 2007, would have went with the the torture bill and Webb's GI bill. The McCain of 2008 is too scared of offending the conservative base that is already lukewarm to him and is not standing up for his beliefs. This doesn't help him in the General Election with military families (read Frank Schaeffer's thoughts on McCain's backing down on these issues).
McCain has not flip-flopped on Immigration, much to the dismay of the Romney base here may believe. About the only thing he has done is adjusted priorities, raising the priority of making securing the border. On Immigration, there isn't much difference between McCain and Obama (sorry all you here that may think differently).
Now with regards to "lies" and straight talk. I do believe McCain has lost his edge. For example, the latest flare-up over whether he did or didn't vote for Bush in 2000. I frankly wish he would have came out and stated "you darn right I didn't vote for Bush." At that time, he could have perfectly justifiable reasons, given what happen in SC to be upset. He could have wrote his own name in, just for spite. It doesn't mean in retrospect that he wouldn't have changed it now, or that he is any less a Republican. No, McCain today is so fearful of conservative backlash that he hims and haws about his vote in 2000, and then, goes on O'Reilly and flat denies it. Excuse me, John, but did you not realize that where you stated the fact was in the presence of many people, not just your word against Arianna's word? This deflates McCain's best traits of why independant voters like him (e.g., his ability to be his own person). It makes him look weak and vulnerable to be swayed what ever directing the conservative base wants to swing him. It was a petty issue, he could have just stated that Arianna was right, that it was a mistake, and he wouldn't do it that way now (i.e., he was caught up in still being upset at the way the primaries went). Most people would understand it.
Posted by: tc on May 9, 2008 11:27 AMYou trying to avoid paying taxes there Pudge? I don't see anyone stopping you from hosting your blog, singing songs on YouTube, or posting here. Care to clarify?
http://www.examiner.com/blogs-73-Yeas_and_Nays~y2008m5d9-McCain-planning-climate-change-tour
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on May 9, 2008 11:32 AMMaybe McCain is the anti-Clinton.
make it 100!
Posted by: Andrew Brown on May 9, 2008 11:43 AMYou are just like a recording. Listen dumb ass, white kids are dying there too, you freak. Do you even have a latent ability to think critically or are you just an echoing puppet of left wing propaganda. You are serious scum. I not only disagree with you over what you said, but I hate you for it. I bet you have a grey ponytail don't you. Did you hang out in Canada during Vietnam? Spit on any G.I.'s lately?
Oh, and one more thing, now don't lie about this, you really think that the troops are basically illiterate dummys who couldn't do anything else anyway, right? Also the military is evil, you know all the horrible things they do. To blame the elected officials that make the policies that the military follows would not be correct anyway would it. In your world we hold the GI's responsible and worship the con artist pretenders that get themselves elected and are quick to place the blame elsewhere (with the help of useful idiots such as yourself).
Posted by: REBEL on May 9, 2008 11:45 AMBERLIN, Germany (CNN) -- German police in a Bavarian town shot and killed a U.S. soldier overnight ...
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/03/14/germany.gi/index.html
2 U.S. soldiers killed in Japan...
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/05/ap_japansoldierdeaths_070512/
TC... Bush did NOTHING to Mccain. That one is so old.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on May 9, 2008 11:59 AMI was a McCain supporter in 2000 and still find it despictable what Bush did to McCain in SC.
I have always liked McCain myself, and would have preferred him to Bush in 2000. However, people who claim that Bush did ANYTHING BAD to McCain in SC in 2000 are just making things up. There is NO serious evidence that Bush, or his people, did any of those things. Period. And don't think it hasn't been investigated to hell and back.
Secondly, some of what you say are lies, aren't lies, but political frameworks.
I'd like to see a single example of what I said was a lie, that is not.
Some of the "facts" you stated are incorrect, however.
You've provided no examples of such. Can you?
For example on the "rich" tax cuts, McCain has stated that he is now in favor of making them permanent.
Yes. That is actually what I said. How am I incorrect? He is in favor of making them permanent, because he is against raising taxes, which is what the expiration of those cuts would be: a tax increase. So even though he was against them passing, he is in favor of maintaining them. This is not only easy to understand, but all the Democrats DO understand it, and when they call him (implied or otherwise) a flip-flopper, they are lying.
(Note, by the way, that I also publically called the Republicans on lying about John Kerry's "flip-flop" about the war funding back in 2003. Remember that one? He voted for it, before he voted against it? But his vote against it was perfectly defensible: he was in favor of the funding, but against HOW it was being funded, so he voted against it. It was dishonest to imply Kerry was against the funding. But then Kerry made it even worse with his "for it/against it" remark, and I dropped it. If he insists on digging his own grave, I have to just give up. :-)
He has also stated (see his economic plan) that he "...has also long sought permanent and immediate reform of the estate tax, and supports raising the exemption from taxation on estates up to $10 million while cutting the tax rate to 15 percent." This is an additional "tax cut" for the rich.
The context of my comments was income tax, obviously, since I was referring to the left's specific complaint about being against, and then for, the tax cut. I disagree with you on the estate tax, but I am not going to dwell on it here.
Obama has also called for Middle Class tax cuts, but also doesn't have rose colored glasses on when it comes to Social Security and Medicare and has called for raising those limits, which would hit only upper-middle class voters
This is one of the DUMBEST things Obama proposes. He is, literally, raising taxes on the "upper-middle class" in order to give money to wealthy retired people. That makes NO SENSE AT ALL. If we did means testing, then we could keep going without an increase of the limit, and keep the money in the hands of the "upper-middle class" where it would do FAR more good for the economy.
With regards to the War, I do believe the DNC has exaggerated McCain's statement (like I am sure the RNC will not exaggerrate or use any Obama's statements in a negative light), but it doesn't exclude the fact that McCain doesn't have an exit strategy from Iraq.
That is not a point I was addressing, so is irrelevant. I'll say whether he has an exit strategy is arguable, and leave it at that. I'll also ignore your other points below about where you think McCain was wrong about Iraq: I only addressed the notion that McCain == Bush on Iraq, which is obviously a lie. The rest is a separate topic.
With regard to torture, I do believe McCain has caved to the Bushites in the party on this issue
Give me a SINGLE EXAMPLE of how he caved. Saying you believe it is irrelevant. WHY do you believe it? No facts back you up on that belief. His position has not changed at all. I already demonstrated how he was NOT voting in favor of torture when he voted against making the Army Field Manual apply to the CIA. Did you have another vote in mind?
just as he is caving on the GI bill. The McCain of 2000, even 2007, would have went with the ... Webb's GI bill
Nonsense. Webb's GI Bill is a TERRIBLE AND STUPID idea. I won't dwell on it further, however, as it is beside the point. I'd love to discuss ALL these issues in depth, but I don't have all day, and I want to stick to the topic. I'll just say that this is a pandering and pointless move that does not do our country any good.
The McCain of 2008 is too scared of offending the conservative base that is already lukewarm to him and is not standing up for his beliefs. This doesn't help him in the General Election with military families (read Frank Schaeffer's thoughts on McCain's backing down on these issues).
Yes, that is the narrative the Democrats are trying to push. But, as I showed, it is based almost entirely on lies. And while you have come up with some other valid criticisms of McCain that are NOT lies, you've not shown that any of what I've said are lies, are not. And these are the things the Democrats are pushing.
Now with regards to "lies" and straight talk. I do believe McCain has lost his edge.
Based on what? NO examples have been provided.
For example, the latest flare-up over whether he did or didn't vote for Bush in 2000.
Oh please. No one cares. This is coming from Arianna Huffington, who is the biggest liar the left has. (Indeed, the thing that pushed me over the edge to write this very post was her recent appearance on Colbert [last night I think], where she spouted off most of the lies I listed in the post.)
I frankly wish he would have came out and stated "you darn right I didn't vote for Bush."
Even if he DID vote for Bush?! You're taking the word of someone who has NO reason whatsoever to be trusted, as truth.
Excuse me, John, but did you not realize that where you stated the fact was in the presence of many people, not just your word against Arianna's word?
Oh right, I forgot, some actors said they heard him say it too. Yawn. I can't believe you're actually falling for this! Come on.
Now do you actually have any REAL issues to back up your claim that "McCain has lost his edge"? Do you have any examples of things I said are lies, that are not? Do you have any examples of where I gave incorrect facts?
He was ok with it as long as they aren't getting killed - which is exactly what our inane foreign policies are causing, unfortunately.
Is he gonna ask Al-Quaida really nicely to not hurt us, or pull the troops out? I hope no one is stupid enough to say we'll just kill them all (al-quaida, I mean) because that sure isn't working well thus far...
Posted by: Andrew Brown on May 9, 2008 01:06 PMWhat an @sshat!
First: off ALL have volunteered. NOBODY forced them to join.
Second: Most "poor black and Latino" kids cannot join. They either fail the ASVAB test or have disqualifying law violations. This is mainly due to schools and a popular culture that has failed them.
To claim they cannot do anything else other than join the service is an result of our schools which have been run my the Dems/Left for a very long time.
ALSO: Take your class warefare and shove it it where the sun don't shine.
With all the money spent and programs we've had for so long there should be no poor, homeless, hungry or uneducated people in the U.S.
How about as long as we are spending hundreds of millions subsidizing Planned Parenthood ($336 million)?
How about as long as we are spending hundreds of millions subsidizing the UN ($439,611,612 ... in 2005)?
How about as long as we are subsidizing government waste (24.5 BILLION in 2003)?
How about as long as we are subsidizing foreign aid ($15 BILLION EACH year)
How about as long as we are subsidizing BILLIONS as as a nanny state ($313 BILLION in federal welfare spending in 2000)?
How about as long as the US is subsidizing AIDS research (2.7 BILLION in 2005)?
How about as long as the US is subsidizing "global warming" (4 BILLION/year)?
How about as long as the dems in congress keep pushing through ridiculous pork projects (17.2 BILLION in 2008)?
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on May 9, 2008 03:18 PMWhat do you mean there isn't one? What kind of half-assed "police state" is this? George Bush can't do anything right.
I say we throw him out of office in January.
And how much has gas gone down since the democrats won the two houses two years ago?
Who has the 2 Trillion in new taxes planned to plop down on us in the middle of this time?
Who wants to roll back the tax cuts, thus raising taxes even higher?
Who is planning yet another massive new government healthcare run program.
Why it the Democraps that's who!
Posted by: GS on May 9, 2008 03:42 PMHuh?
Posted by: Saltherring on May 9, 2008 03:54 PMThese statements by Don have previously been critiqued. Besides having significant inaccuracies, Al-Qaeda is the correct spelling. On the military front, McCain is anything but soft on terrorism and the area where both McCain and Bush are soft in our security (the borders) - Don will NEVER address. He seems to have Barack Obama confused with Sen. McCain in being soft on terrorism. What an ignoramus - you are out of your element - your progressive comrades are over at Horse'sass.org. Hopefully, Sen. McCain will get out front and address these accusations as lies, even though he says he wants to run a clean campaign.
Good post and in addition, McCain is the strongest candidate that the Republicans could have hoped to have this year. The Bush administration has transformed the Republican party - not in a favorable way and has largely brought about the shift in public perception. McCain would be wise to stress "fiscal conservatism" and lowering the budget deficit - throw in some specifics too, as well as sorely needed reforms in our energy policy. Finally, he needs to back off on his acceptance of the Democratic /environmentalist platform that will help him pull in more disenchanted conservatives and paint them as the problem in obtaining energy dependance. He'll also get more independent votes by doing this.
Posted by: KS on May 9, 2008 04:31 PMDo the words Bridge to Nowhere and I-75 Expansion ring a bell? Which party was in control of the White House & Congress from 2000 - 2006 writing three budgets that Bush signed?
Pork is a problem on both sides, luckily the two party nominees have vowed to rid Congress of pork. Of course the biggest pork is that stuff you never hear about because it's buried within the Defense budget.
DUH !
Posted by: KS on May 9, 2008 04:41 PMYou are correct. There is considerable pork and wasteful spending in the defense budget. In my opinion there is far more waste in social programs. If you recall, the constitution states the federal government shall "PROVIDE for the common defense" but only commits to "PROMOTE the general welfare". Common defense is constitutionally mandated, welfare is not. The government has no business collecting taxes for the purpose of distributing money to those who choose not to work. Welfare should be left to private charities, who help those who truly cannot help themselves.
Posted by: Saltherring on May 9, 2008 05:27 PMjvon: ahahahahaha!
Cato: yes, pork and nannystatism is a problem on both sides. Unfortunately, however, they are a core part of the Democratic platform, and applauded by the Democratic base, while us grassroots Republicans oppose it, and (as in 2006) do not come out in force for Republicans when they work against our interests in such a way.
Saltherring, no, the part of the Constitution you are quoting, which is a portion of Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, is merely broadly stating the powers to follow. There IS NO POWER of Congress "to provide for the common defense" OR "to promote the general welfare." What follows are the powers, each of which falls under one the topics mentioned in Clause 1: declare war, raise and support armies, regulate commerce between the states and foreign nations, coin money, and so on.
So I agree with your basic point -- welfare is not the business of government -- but not because of a difference between "promote" and "provide," but because neither of those is a power at all, but merely a summary of the powers that are enumerated below.
Posted by: pudge on May 9, 2008 05:35 PMThat is going to be put out as the truth regardless of who the candidate is or where we are in the election year.
The leftists in the WA D party have the Republicans running scared and have for many years.
When the Republicans get out of the board rooms and golf courses and actually bring the issues to the people with public meetings and events independent of the media, they may have a chance.
Meanwhile, the leftist Democrats carry the Republicans' gonads down the streets on parade for all to see.
Posted by: Independent Voter on May 9, 2008 05:39 PMYa- that must be lost on the egg heads on the left. Guess they were out smoking reefer that day in history 302.
Posted by: Andy on May 9, 2008 05:42 PMI swear when people say MOST, they really mean "ALL". Stop being a pansy and speak the Truth in YOUR Words. Say what you mean and mean what you say. I love being a Libertarian, I don't have to hide in PC la la land!
Posted by: Truth In Words on May 9, 2008 05:54 PMPretty much everything that the left is saying is lies.
There, fixed that for you pudge.
Posted by: Jeff B. on May 9, 2008 07:59 PMHamas and Al-Qaeda will be happy; face it if Obama wins.. There will be unintended consequences to pay down the road & you can take that to the bank, if the trend of Americans going for instant gratification/the perceived quick fix, that will backfire like when Carter was President. If there is one thing that should be understood from the past two administrations; a balance of power (one party controls congress and the other party controls the White House) is always better than one-party control. People in WA State should be able to see this clear as the nose on your face.
Posted by: KS on May 9, 2008 10:35 PMDon, when was the last time you were in Baghdad? I was there about a week ago and nope no Al Qaeda there. They tend to be up north in Mosul. It is the Mahdi Army that is trying to cause probelms in Baghdad, but they are constantly getting routed by not only the US forces, but also the Iraqi forces.
As for loosing the war in Iraq and Afghanistan you can believe what you want, but the truth will come out. In case you have forgotten, the surge is working, violence as a whole is down in Iraq. As for Afghanistan and the so called reinsurgence of the Taliban, well duh it is springtime again. I am tired of the MSM clamoring about a Taliban Springtime offensive. What has it been three years now that we have heard this crock. Of course attacks are down in the winter. The Taliban are doing all they can just to stay warm up in their caves and dont have the energy to venture out in the mountain cold, so they wait till spring and start up again until mid to late summer when they get thier butts totally whipped again and crawl back into their hybernation holes until the next spring when once again the MSM will say that the Taliban is showing a renewed existence.
Posted by: TrueSoldier on May 10, 2008 01:18 AMUnfortunately the press is in the tank for the empty suit and will try every slime piece of journalism to sully John McCain's reputation before November. I'm counting on the young and dumb who are solidly behind Barry Obama to do what they always do every election cylce and turn on the "idiot box" that tuesday and forget there is even an election going on.
Posted by: Rick D. on May 10, 2008 11:32 AMWell, Darcy is running against him. Maybe she'll win this time.
Posted by: pbj on May 10, 2008 12:42 PM1st Lie) "John McCain will control the US borders and ports! The poor, poor illegal Mexicans!" "The terrorists will no longer be able to cross the Rio Grand or come in via student visas anymore!"
2nd Lie) "John McCain hates the UN! He puts the sovereignty of America above the great wisdom of the UN human rights and gun control committees! OH, Freakin' NO!"
3rd Lie) "John McCain will vote for judges who follow the US Constitution, like David Souter (was supposed to). We cannot have that! We need control of the country via the Supreme Court!"
4th Lie) "John McCain will let Americans keep their nasty guns! They are icky and can get up and out of the closet and just fire at people! I've seen it on TV!" This man will trash our gun control efforts!"
5th Lie) "John McCain will not support the Global Warming/Cooling/We-have-not-the-fricken-slightest-clue TM adherents like he says he will." "He will let the economy run on its own! Can you believe that s__t?"
Man, Rick, if any one of these lies were true, I might have an inclination to support this half-crazed a-hole. But, they are not. So, it doesn't matter what the left-wing media (or, should I say "the media") says, what would make me think better of this guy?
Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, or Bob Barr, you've got some choices. If not, don't go spouting off that the people got what they deserved.
Posted by: Dave Lincoln on May 10, 2008 01:54 PM....and a vote for any of the clowns above in November is a vote thrown away and more importantly, a vote FOR Barack Obama.
Pragmatic Paulistinians understand this.
Posted by: Rick D. on May 10, 2008 03:08 PMOK, he has drunk the AGW Kool-Aid, I'll give you that. But you're wrong about the rest.
Granted, he is not perfect on most of those issues. While he has opposed the AWB and frivolous lawsuits against gun manufacturers, he has also spoken out against "cheap guns" and "the gun show loophole." While he is in favor of controlling the border, he did not want to do that BEFORE enacting the rest of his immigration reform (though now he has said he will). While he has done more than most Republican Senators to get conservative judges on the bench, he's also had unkind words about what he calls "extremist" judges, and has been too favorable toward judges like O'Connor.
But you didn't say those things. You said he wants to take our guns, that he won't support textualist judges, and that he does not favor controlling the borders. All of that is lies.
And you're just making things up entirely regarding the UN. He has never in any way put the UN above the U.S.
Posted by: pudge on May 10, 2008 04:10 PMMcCain is a supporter of shamnesty for illegal aliens. Remember pudge, McCain thinks you are too lazy to pick lettuce for $50/hr, so he must let the illegals in to take your job. Perhap we will see them singing political ballads on You-Tube in the future too.
Posted by: pbj on May 10, 2008 04:30 PMApparently you haven't read about McCain and his pro shamnesty former Mexican government official/shamnesty advocate Juan Hernandez - his presidential campaign Hispanic Outreach Director.
McCain is for open borders. What else can one conclude when he grumbles about having to build that 'Goddamn fence' ?
What else can one conclude when he refuses to address sanctuary cities.?
What else can one conclude when he embraces reconquista groups such as LaRaz (Spanish for
"The Race") who supports giving the entire US Southwest back to Mexico?
Posted by: pbj on May 10, 2008 04:41 PMuhh, no, a vote for any of the clowns is a vote for one of the clowns (in your terms, patriot is my term!). I guess don't buy that Toyota, Rick, because, in the competition between Chevy and Ford, a sale for Toyota is just a sale for Ford. I mean, WTFF?
And in the aerial tanker world, between Lockheed and Boeing, an award to EADS is just the same as awarding the contract to Lockheed. Am I making any sense here? NO, same as your statement.
Vote for who you believe in, and I will do the same. Keep putting these RINO's in and don't expect and conservatism or libertarianism out of them. As much as I think he sucks in the 3rd degree, I never said McCain was a liar. He's an a-hole, and he lays that all out on the table for us.
Posted by: Dave Lincoln on May 10, 2008 06:25 PMNo, I am not lying, Pudge. I may have been involved in politics longer than you, or I just have a better long-term memory.
Controlling the borders!!! ha, just see the 2 posters above - I don't want to waste a whole hour on this.
Guns? See www.gunowners.org and check out his votes and rating by the GOA. McCain was OK in the distant past on this (I mean 15-20 years), but he is not now. Do some reading, will ya?
And, on judges, learn about the gang of 14 (about blocking judicial nominations), and read of McCain's regrets about Sam Alito.
Look Pudge, you may have only been thinking of politics for a few years, but for me it's more like since Reagan. The MSM counts on lots of forgetfulness on the part of the voters, but with the internet, they can't pull so much wool over anymore.
So, no lying from me, I don't know about lying by the media, but who cares? The man suck some serious a__! He can rot in Hell, as far as I'm concerned.
Posted by: Dave Lincoln on May 10, 2008 06:32 PMNo, I am not lying, Pudge. I may have been involved in politics longer than you, or I just have a better long-term memory.
Controlling the borders!!! ha, just see the 2 posters above - I don't want to waste a whole hour on this.
Guns? See www.gunowners.org and check out his votes and rating by the GOA. McCain was OK in the distant past on this (I mean 15-20 years), but he is not now. Do some reading, will ya?
And, on judges, learn about the gang of 14 (about blocking judicial nominations), and read of McCain's regrets about Sam Alito.
Look Pudge, you may have only been thinking of politics for a few years, but for me it's more like since Reagan. The MSM counts on lots of forgetfulness on the part of the voters, but with the internet, they can't pull so much wool over anymore.
So, no lying from me, I don't know about lying by the media, but who cares? The man sucks some serious a__! He can rot in Hell, as far as I'm concerned.
Posted by: Dave Lincoln on May 10, 2008 06:32 PMCorrect "suck some serious a__"
to "sucks some serious a__"
Sorry pudge, McCain is a supporter of shamnesty for illegal aliens.
Why are you apologizing? Are you implying this disagrees with anything I said? It obviosuly does not.
McCain is for open borders.
False. And you have no evidence to back that up.
What else can one conclude when he grumbles about having to build that 'Goddamn fence'
Thinking the fence is a bad idea obviously does not imply he is for open borders. It seems to me he, like many people, are in favor of increased border security but simply believe a fence either won't do the job, or that there are better ways to do the job.
What else can one conclude when he embraces reconquista groups such as LaRaz (Spanish for "The Race")
McCain DOES NOT embrace La Raza. Speaking to them is not "embracing" them. Be serious, please.
Posted by: pudge on May 10, 2008 06:50 PMNo, I am not lying, Pudge. I may have been involved in politics longer than you, or I just have a better long-term memory.
No, in fact, you are lying. You are saying things that are obviously factually incorrect.
Controlling the borders!!! ha, just see the 2 posters above - I don't want to waste a whole hour on this.
Shrug. He did not provide any evidence of any kind to back up the claim that McCain does not want to control the borders. All he showed was that McCain doesn't like the fence. Obviously not the same thing.
Guns? See www.gunowners.org and check out his votes and rating by the GOA. McCain was OK in the distant past on this (I mean 15-20 years), but he is not now. Do some reading, will ya?
No. You see, how this works is that if you make an assertion, it's your job to back it up. You said McCain wants to take away our guns. If you won't back it up, I will assume you can't back it up, just like you can't back up your claim that McCain is for open borders. Since I know you CANNOT provide any evidence backing up your lie that McCain wants to take away our guns, I won't hold my breath waiting for it.
And, on judges, learn about the gang of 14 (about blocking judicial nominations), and read of McCain's regrets about Sam Alito.
I know all about the Gang of 14, and the FACT is that without the Gang of 14 we likely would not have had Alito ever reach the bench, let alone many other conservative judges. The Gang of 14 was a HUGE victory for getting conservative judges on the bench: not only did we get our conservative judges, but we did it without resorting to violating Senate rules (the so-called "nuclear option"), which would have been a major P.R. disaster, playing right into Harry Reid's hands.
As to "regrets about Sam Alito," you're lying again. You're referring to the quote that there is no evidence of, that McCain denies, that he might not APPOINT Sam Alito, because he "wears his conservatism on his sleeve." If the quote is accurate (big if), first of all, it does not mean McCain does not want conservatives, it means he doesn't want conservatives who are so open and brazen about it (not that I think Alito is that type of person at all, but that's what the alleged quote implies).
Second, it is VERY DIFFERENT to say that you would not appoint someone, versus regretting voting for or supporting him, so it is, quite obviously, a gross mischaracterization to say McCain expressed any regrets about Alito whatsoever.
You're wrong on all counts.
Look Pudge, you may have only been thinking of politics for a few years
Or I may not have.
but for me it's more like since Reagan
Oh, how cute.
So, no lying from me
False. Almost everything you said is a lie.
However, I'll give you one more chance. Show ANY evidence that McCain ever said he would not appoint conservative justices (or even that he had regrets about Alito), or that he ever said he would take away our guns, or that he has ever picked the UN over the U.S.
Prove any of those things, by citing actual verifiable evidence. Until you do, I will not respond to any more of your claims here, because you're just wasting my time with your lies.
Posted by: pudge on May 10, 2008 07:04 PMHowever, you could use your obviously very flawed memory to claim you're not lying: you're just not very good at remembering things, maybe? So you really really THOUGHT McCain said he would take our guns, just like you really really THOUGHT I ragged on Ron Paul, even though neither thing ever happened?
Posted by: pudge on May 10, 2008 07:17 PMNo, I am sure you did bad-mouth Ron Paul, as every one of the Sound Politics writers, with the excepetion of Mr. Shark, has. But, I will look through the archives on it. I'm just in the middle of something here.
Pudge, it just doesn't seem like you have a long-term feel of the goings on in politics if you really like this guy. He is not in the least bit conservative with the one exception of the Iraq war stance (whether one should call that conservative or not is really arguable too.)
I just read your other post now, Pudge. I stick to my position of your being an imbecile, albeit an imbecile with a half-way decent singing voice.
I'll write more later, dillweed.
Posted by: Dave Lincoln on May 10, 2008 07:36 PMShrug. If you could back up your lie that McCain wants to take away our guns, you would do so. If you could back up any of your other lies, you would do so. You have not done so, because you cannot.
No, I am sure you did bad-mouth Ron Paul
You're a liar. I never did any such thing. Again, I have criticized him on specific points, where he said things that were dumb (e.g., "blowback" is sufficient justification for not being involved) or incorrect (e.g., the Constitution required a declaration of war to invade Iraq). But I have been following, and admiring, Ron Paul since the mid-90s, and I respect him a great deal.
I've been a big admirer of his since before 99 percent of his supporters ever heard of him. I have never "bad-mouthed" him in my life, unless you consider rational criticism "bad-mouthing," in which case I have bad-mouthed McCain and Bush far more than I have ever "bad-mouthed" Paul. Indeed, I've defended Paul many times on this site, such as when Eric Earling tried to dismiss Paul as not a Republican, and Eric and others said he should drop out, and on, and on.
I even wrote a song about Ron Paul, criticizing the media for neglecting him. OK, in truth, the song was really more of a criticism of Ron Paul supporters who overdramatize the media treatment of Ron Paul, but it's all in good fun.
You will not find an example showing me "bad-mouth" Ron Paul because none exists.
Pudge, it just doesn't seem like you have a long-term feel of the goings on in politics if you really like this guy.
Riiiiiiight. If I have a different opinion than you, therefore I have less understanding than you. What are you, 12?
He is not in the least bit conservative with the one exception of the Iraq war stance (whether one should call that conservative or not is really arguable too.)
False, of course. His foreign policy (excluding Iraq, for the sake of argument) is very conservative, as are his positions on pork and spending and taxes. He has many more conservative positions of course, but that is more than enough to prove that your claim that he is "not in the least bit conservative" is obviously false, just like your other lies.
I'll write more later, dillweed.
Yes, apparently, you *are* 12.
Posted by: pudge on May 10, 2008 09:35 PMDon't worry about it... That "gunowners" site is a shill site for the idiot Chuck Baldwin. He's a guy who considers Mussolini and Francisco liberal, leftist scum.
Oh Davey boy? Why does Chuck think McCain is a "gun grabbing liberal" (his words)? Because of this amendment that would require background checks at sales events.
Ever go to a swap meet? EVERY SINGLE PERSON THERE has to record all sales and pay sales tax. This extends those same requirements - and the federal requirements on sales of firearms by businesses (which you must be at a swap meet) by complying with the law.
Individuals can still sell a firearm without a problem. You and I can sell firearms to each other without a background check. Do it as a business, in a venue typically filled with businesses? You have to behave like a business.
So how is making businesses abide by the laws for businesses a gun grab? It doesn't stop private individuals from transferring ownership of firearms, and it doesn't stop businesses from selling. Just says that they have to carry out the federal law about background checks.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on May 10, 2008 10:03 PMOh hell pudge, you KNOW better than that. I know you do.
Using your theory, then I guess Oama's plan to have the nut of Iran over for tea isn't embracing HIM either.
McCain is an open borders man from start to finish. He even employs Juan Hernandez,
"False. And you have no evidence to back that up."
I gave you a bunch. Would Ronald Reagan have been taken seriously as a staunch anti-communist if he had attended their convention and given a speech there?
If Ronald Reagan had put Lenin on his official staff, who would have taken him seriously?
McCain has Juan Hernandez on his staff, a man who wants all "immigrants" from Mexico to think Mexico first.
Oh hell pudge, you KNOW better than that. I know you do.
Shrug. Back up your claim, then.
Using your theory, then I guess Oama's plan to have the nut of Iran over for tea isn't embracing HIM either.
No, I absolutely would not call Obama's plan to meet with Ahamadinejad "embracing" him. Not by itself. It would depend entirely on what he said and did before, during, or after that meeting.
Was Reagan "embracing" Gorbachev when they met? Maybe later in their relationship, but not at first. However, Bush was embracing Putin when he talked about "looking into his eyes." It is all about context.
I gave you a bunch [of evidence that McCain is for open borders].
Um. No, you provided none at all. You instead talked about him speaking to La Raza (which is meaningless in this context, unless he spoke to them about his support for open borders), and you showed that he is skeptical about the fence is a bad idea. Hell, I think the fence is probably a bad idea too, but I am for controlling the borders.
So no, you have provided no evidence that McCain is for open borders.
Would Ronald Reagan have been taken seriously as a staunch anti-communist if he had attended their convention and given a speech there?
It depends entirely on what he said there.
If Ronald Reagan had put Lenin on his official staff, who would have taken him seriously?
I KNOW you know better than compare Juan Hernandez to Lenin. Come on. Out of all he has said, the most damning thing you can come up with is a rhetorical phrase, taken completely out of context, about "think Mexico first"? Please.
Dial it down a bit, there, pbj.
Posted by: pudge on May 10, 2008 10:58 PMThe difference between McCain and Bush is akin to the Medieval debate about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
I suppose that if you define success as the mass murder of citizens of a nation that was NEVER, EVER IN ANY WAY a threat to the US, then Bush's old policies were just as 'successful' as are the 'new' McCain-esque policies. Who gives a crap? A 'less bad' quagmire is still a quagmire; a 'lower body count' is still mass murder; a 'war crime lite' is still a capital offense!!!
Get a clue and get out of your stupid right wing, ideological (in fact, a Hegel/Marxist) paradigm!
Bush's war against the people of Iraq was premised upon a pack of bald faced lies and there is absolutely NOTHING that will redeem it and absolutely NOTHING that will bring back to life the legion of innocent folk who posed ABSOLUTELY NO THREAT WHATSOEVER to the people of the US.
The ONLY relevant debates are about how soon we begin the war crimes trials of Bush, Condo, Cheney, Rummie et al, how big should the 'dock' be, who will prosecute, will we use new ropes or old?
In the meantime, read Vincent Bugliosi's "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder"
And McCain talks about staying in Iraq for 100, maybe even 10,000 years!!!!!! What a frickin' nut job!!!!
Posted by: Len on May 11, 2008 12:54 AM
At home and abroad, international law is abandoned by America's lawmakers and not surprisingly. Bush, after all, had said of our own laws that "The Constitution is just a goddamned piece of paper". It is irrational to expect that an idiot and criminal who disdains US laws would respect our international obligations and treaties! The idiot, Newt Gingrich, recently defended Bush. It was necessary to abrogate our civil liberties, he said, in order to defend them! What utter fallacious bullshit!
Recently it has been learned that some 300,000 US soldiers suffer from 'mental conditions' of one sort or another. One wonders what percentage of these 'mental conditions' were deep rooted, long term disorders? When US jobs decline (as they always do under GOP regimes; check Bureau of Labor Stats, CB and BEA) many folk have no other career choice but the killing of other people in wars of naked aggression. Blackwater is called 'elite' because they do it for the money, a "Praetorian Guard"!
The recent destruction of a hospital also destroyed a fleet of ambulances. The trapped, injured, mutilated and terrorized waited in vain for help! From an account: "In the blackest, most tragic of ironies, it was 'protective' walls which collapsed on the ambulances as a result of the blast, crushing them."
This, I suppose, is called by idiots a "McCain-esque" success!
Elsewhere, five missiles exploded in the car park near the hospital. Youngsters climbed into a crater six meters wide looking in vain for survivors. But we will told a bald faced lie that they were all 'terrorists' anyway.
But --read my lips --THERE ARE NO WMD AND THERE NEVER WERE WMD!!! It was all a pack of 'goddamned lies'.
It is Bush who now uses WMD against a civilian population --a capital crime even under US Codes! Look them up and read them!
I know a bit about carpentry. When the war crimes trials begin, I hereby volunteer to help build the dock. And they are gonna need a LARGE one!
Posted by: Len on May 11, 2008 01:21 AMMaybe I underestimated your ability to think independently. Sorry, I won't make that mistake. I guess we can simply look at what the party endorses to see what Pudge thinks. Like a good little soldier.
"No, I absolutely would not call Obama's plan to meet with Ahamadinejad "embracing" him. Not by itself. It would depend entirely on what he said and did before, during, or after that meeting."
You don't think that meeting with the Iranian nutjob and other despots unconditionally doesn't give them a legitimacy that they otherwise would not have? So you are for talking with terrorists then? What next, tea with Bin Laden in the Oval Office?
"Was Reagan "embracing" Gorbachev when they met? Maybe later in their relationship, but not at first. However, Bush was embracing Putin when he talked about "looking into his eyes." It is all about context."
Are you equating the Russians with the Iranians? That is quite a stretch. Were the Russian on our terrorist watch list?
"Um. No, you provided none at all. You instead talked about him speaking to La Raza (which is meaningless in this context, unless he spoke to them about his support for open borders), and you showed that he is skeptical about the fence is a bad idea. Hell, I think the fence is probably a bad idea too, but I am for controlling the borders."
I provided plenty of evidence. As John McCain himself said, judge him by the company he keeps. Let's look at his company shall we? Juan Hernandez, La Raza, McCain/Kennedy, McCain/Feingold.
In an appearance on ABC's Nightline in 2001, Hernandez said, referring to Mexican immigrants in the U.S., "I want the third generation, the seventh generation, I want them all to think 'Mexico first.'"
Hernandez told the Associated Press the same year, "I never knew the border as a limitation. I'd be delighted if all of us could come and go between these two marvelous countries."
Last August, Hernandez published a book entitled "The New American Pioneers: Why Are We Afraid of Mexican Immigrants?" in which he argued Mexican immigrants, both legal and illegal, were at the forefront of establishing a new North American market combining the U.S. with Mexico.
Please tell us your idea for securing the borders since you hate the idea of a fence.
"So no, you have provided no evidence that McCain is for open borders."
Yes I have. Go look up
"I KNOW you know better than compare Juan Hernandez to Lenin. Come on. Out of all he has said, the most damning thing you can come up with is a rhetorical phrase, taken completely out of context, about "think Mexico first"? Please."
In what context does one talk about illegal aliean invading our country and repeat the phrase "think Mexico first"? That is like saying Rev Wright was taken out of context when he said whites invented AIDS to kill blacks.
Posted by: pbj on May 11, 2008 01:26 AMMaybe I underestimated your ability to think independently.
Sorry, this is a fallacy. YOU are responsible to back up YOUR claims. No attempts at misdirection or personal attack can change that fact.
You don't think that meeting with the Iranian nutjob and other despots unconditionally doesn't give them a legitimacy that they otherwise would not have?
I never addressed that. I said it is not "embracing" them. "Embracing" is not the same as "granting undue legitimacy." You are committing the "shifting the goalposts" fallacy.
I provided plenty of evidence. As John McCain himself said, judge him by the company he keeps.
Um. No. This is just retarded, pbj. I asked for evidence that he supports open borders. That cannot be determined by the company he keeps, it needs actual evidence. Even if we could potentially judge such a thing by association, he also keeps company with many people who OPPOSE open borders, so that wouldn't work.
You need ACTUAL EVIDENCE that McCAIN HIMSELF supports open borders. You have provided none, at all.
It is really pathetic that you are so blinded by your hatred of McCain that you can't even see simple facts.
In what context does one talk about illegal aliean invading our country and repeat the phrase "think Mexico first"?
That video showed no such thing. The phrase "think Mexico first" in the video had no context of any kind -- it was completely by itself -- let alone the context of "illegal aliens invading our country."
That is like saying Rev Wright was taken out of context when he said whites invented AIDS to kill blacks.
No, because we a. actually had SOME context to his remark, and b. he reiterated the statement later.
You are spouting nonsense.
SO WHAT if we stay in Iraq for 100 years, as long as our troops are not in harm's way? How is this a problem?
You CANNOT back up the claim that the right wing is Marxist. The Democrats are the ones who have Marxists in their ranks; the right wing in the U.S. is completely opposed to everything Marxism stands for. You obviously have no idea what Marxism is.
You CANNOT back up the claim of "mass murder" in Iraq by the U.S. There were no "war crimes" committed by the U.S. leaders, and you have absolutely no evidence of it. The only way anyone can come up with such claims is to lie about international law, or lie about the facts, which is precisely what Bugliosi does.
You CANNOT back up the claim that Bush or McCain is a liar, or that they support any illegal or imperialist policies.
You CANNOT back up the claim that Bush's policies violate international law.
You CANNOT back up the claim that Bush ever said "The Constitution is just a goddamned piece of paper." (However, even if he did, the Democratic Party and the left in the U.S. are devoted primarily to violating the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, so who are they to throw stones?)
You CANNOT back up the claim that Newt Gingrich is an idiot. He's many times smarter than you. And no, Gingrich never said it was necessary to abrogate our civil liberties. That's a lie.
You CANNOT back up the claim that mentally damaged people joined the U.S. military. There is no basis whatsoever for that claim. Everyone who has looked at and understands the numbers knows that essentially everyone who has seen combat is given a PTSD number of greater than zero, and that this accounts for the number of people with a mental problem being so high. It is exactly this type of disdain for our soldiers -- assuming they joined because they are mentally damaged -- that prevents the Democrats from ever winning the military vote.
You CANNOT back up the claim that WMD was lies. There is NO EVIDENCE OF ANY KIND that we knew there were no WMD. The U.S., UK, France, Germany, Poland, Italy ... everyone thought Iraq had WMD.
You CANNOT back up the claim that Bush used WMD against civilians.
Basically, you cannot back up a damned thing you said.
What did you do to open the door for the nuts to come pouring in....
Next thing will hear is that Nixon started the war in Nam.
LOL
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on May 11, 2008 07:32 AMVoting for Chuck Baldwin, Ron Paul etc. is equivelent to writing in 'Mickey Mouse'. It accomplishes nothing. John McCain was about as far away from my choice as you can imagine, but he's the party nominee whether I like it or not, and will get my begrudging support.
This tilting at windmills approach by the Paulistians is admirable, but naive thinking. Just take the lessor of the 3 evils and hope that the party runs a true "conservative" in 2012 or 2016.
Posted by: Rick D. on May 11, 2008 09:35 AMI actually don't have a philosophical problem with voting for Ron Paul, and I think that vote is a valuable one, far moreso than a vote for Mickey Mouse. It sends a message that you are dissatisfied with the choices, and it gives a hint about what you DO want to see in a candidate.
Yes, it changes nothing about the actual election, but it still serves an important purpose in a democracy.
That said, I think that you either have to be pretty extreme in your libertarianism to choose a protest vote over John McCain if you live in a state, like WA, where McCain has a chance to win. And further -- as I have pointed out in this discussion plenty -- most of the claims against McCain are exaggerated, or outright lies.
But if you simply cannot in good conscience vote for John McCain, then a vote for Paul is a reasonable alternative.
Full disclosure: I voted for Harry Browne in 1996. However, if I had lived in a state where Dole had a chance to win, I'd have voted for him, but I lived in Massachusetts!
Posted by: pudge on May 11, 2008 09:46 AMIf for no other reason, I'll vote McCain because for all his faults, I think he'd do less damage to our democracy than a Clinton or Obama Administration. I think McCain is the perfect buffer in the interim because the Republican brand has been sullied by the current administration, media created or not.
Posted by: Rick D. on May 11, 2008 10:21 AMNow, granted, NO ONE rational can believe McCain would be worse for our ideological goals than Obama or Hillary over the next four years (especially with a Democratic Congress). But long-term? That's a different story. We just don't know.
My view, however, is that it is foolish to take that kind of risk: trying to tear down what we have in the vain hopes of being able to rebuild it exactly how he want it. The fact is, like it or not, our ideology is not agreed upon by a majority of Americans. We need to form coalitions with others. A Ron Paul Revolution in the Republican Party would most likely lead to a permanent minority status for the GOP.
We have to work with what we have, and do the best we can with it. Now, I wouldn't be saying necessarily the same thing about a lower office than President. We can elect someone who is much more conservatively oriented to Congress, to Governor, maybe even someday to Senate. And maybe someday, again, to President. But we've only had one good conservative President in any of our lifetimes. The chance of another Reagan coming along any time soon -- someone who is charismatic, liked by a broad spectrum of Americans, and essentially conservative -- is small. It's why I supported Fred Thompson. But he lost.
I am rambling now. Happy Mother's Day to all moms out there!
Posted by: pudge on May 11, 2008 10:46 AMIf it wasn't for him Reagan would never have been elected.
I am voting for Obama this year so I can vote for a Reagan in 2012
Posted by: Ida on May 11, 2008 03:38 PMThe reason that Republicans lost the House in 2006 wasn't because they were being too "conservative". It was because they were being too liberal in their spending.
Pudge, you are just one of those who like seeing your "team" win and doesn't care about what happens after.
Posted by: Ida on May 11, 2008 04:02 PMIf McCain wins why would they? You would have politicians try to emulate the "McCain Model of Success" and most likely you would have someone who actually served in a McCain administration.
So, no, if McCain wins you can forget about the Republican party running a true conservative for quite some time if ever again.
Perhaps you could live with that, but I can't. That is why I say GO OBAMA, so I can vote for a Reagan next time around.
Posted by: Ida on May 11, 2008 04:18 PMReagan passed away you fool.
And I don't see his sons running.
Wow look at the roaches who just popped out of the wood work.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on May 11, 2008 05:48 PMThe GOP pretends that electing Obama means doomsday for America. Well we survived Carter, we survived Clinton, we will survive Obama. But what we will not survive is continuing down the path we are continuing. We need a total change in direction and that can only happen right now through a failed Democratic Presidency. And that is what Obama will provide us.
Posted by: Ida on May 11, 2008 05:53 PMPudge your "lose slowly" plan makes me sick.
I have no such plan. And that you blatantly misrepresent me, would make me sick, if I cared what you think.
Posted by: pudge on May 11, 2008 05:55 PMSomeone who would speak in front of such racists has no place as President of the United States. This is as bad as the whole Pastor Wright thing is for Obama!!! Both candidates show that they support Racists!
Posted by: Ida on May 11, 2008 05:59 PMThe sad thing, Ida, is that I went out of my way to say that your position -- that the GOP needs to lose to right itself -- is a valid opinion, but that I disagree with it strongly. But you go out of YOUR way to misrepresent what I wrote in order to attack me.
This is why politics is in such a sad shape. Those of us who argue fairly get treated UNfairly by those who disagree. And then you have the nerve, after doing this, to lecture us about values and principles that, to your mind, McCain doesn't have. Pathetic, really.
Posted by: pudge on May 11, 2008 06:02 PMSo, Ford wins. There would have been no Reagan Presidency, no fall of the Berlin wall no, none of that. I dare say that we today would still been in the Cold War or worse!
So, we would have not been better off today had Carter not won. Because of Carter's total failure as President, that led the way for the public's acceptance of Reagan.
And the same thing will happen with Obama.
Posted by: Ida on May 11, 2008 06:15 PMMcCain says he is going to run a decent campaign this year (I don't know the exact word he used but I am paraphrasing here).
That as much as anything else convinces me that he is going to lose this year.
So, STOP ARGUING FAIRLY! Instead, argue with the intent to win.
By the way, though I didn't mischaracterize your remarks. For all your attitude leads to is still moving down the socialist path, albeit it slower than we would with the the Democrats. But with McCain, I don't even know if I can say that.
We need a change in direction. We got that when Carter's failure lead to Reagan, we were supposed to get that when Clinton's failure led to a Republican Congress, and our only chance is that a Failed Democratic Presidency will lead to a wide spread Demand for a change of direction. And that is what the election of Obama will give us.
Posted by: Ida on May 11, 2008 06:25 PMI have the url to one of their posts up on my name.
I don't want to take credit myself for something somone else said so it was from the comment section of this article.
On May 8th, 2008 at 10:22 am, Weary Citizen said:
Exactly!!! If mccain (I don't cap for lack of respect) wins in '08, he becomes the defacto nominee in 2012. In which case, we get him for antoher 4 years or a liberal democrat. Either way, we get a dem or a liberal for 8 years. Period. If he loses, we get a socialist for 4 years and can maybe get a true conservative up in 2012. This assumes of course, a 3rd party can not break the 2 party system in 4 years. This does not even consider the fact that a mccain win will validate to the GOP leadership their strategy of moving left is correct. Even if it means shedding all vestige of conservative pronciples. To them a win is a win regardless.
Posted by: Ida on May 11, 2008 07:58 PMOn May 8th, 2008 at 10:31 am, love2rumba said:
YoungandREstless,
Thank you for catching on to what is at stake. If McCain is allowed to win this fall, you can bet that there will be at least 10 more like him in a variety of races.
For those of you concerned about supreme court nominations...I have this to say-there is no evidence that John McCain will appoint conservatives...more to the point...given the current health of justices it is unlikely that the next presidentis going to make ANY appointments in the next 4 years, and at worst they would only replace a LIBERAL...the balance of power is maintained.
Last reason to not vote McCain-it will be much easier to fight libs on issues if we can get the RINOs out of the way-having McCain in ofice means we have to fight a 2 front war-fighting RINOs and Libs.
Posted by: Ida on May 11, 2008 08:01 PMI did. You just didn't like the evidence.
I never addressed that. I said it is not "embracing" them. "Embracing" is not the same as "granting undue legitimacy." You are committing the "shifting the goalposts" fallacy.
Fine, let's parse word shall we? Ok, please address that point then. Should we be granting legitimacy to terrorist by meeting with them? Should we be granting legitimacy to reconquista groups such as La Raza by meeting with them?
Um. No. This is just retarded, pbj. I asked for evidence that he supports open borders. That cannot be determined by the company he keeps, it needs actual evidence. Even if we could potentially judge such a thing by association, he also keeps company with many people who OPPOSE open borders, so that wouldn't work.
Well if you think what Mccain himself says is retarded, that is your opinion. If you tell all of the illegals here there are no penalties for ilegally crossing the border by ofering them anmesty and are against a fence, then what else can one conclude. Do I think McCain will ever come out ans say "I am for open borders"? Of course he won't. Obama won't ever admit he is a socialist liberal either. We judge them by their actions.
By your method we would believe that Saddam had genuine Democratic elections just because he said so.
McCain surround himself with people like Juan Hernandez, himself an open borders advocate and Jerry Perenchio, billionaire founder of Spanish-language media conglomerate, Univision who also poured millions of dollars into fighting the California movement to teach schoolchildren English.
You need ACTUAL EVIDENCE that McCAIN HIMSELF supports open borders. You have provided none, at all.
I have provided plenty. You refuse to see it because you are a party guy who cannot think independently. You are as bad as the non-thinking leftists who just go along.
It is really pathetic that you are so blinded by your hatred of McCain that you can't even see simple facts.
What is pathetic is your blind loyalty to him just because he has an (R) next to his name.
That video showed no such thing. The phrase "think Mexico first" in the video had no context of any kind -- it was completely by itself -- let alone the context of "illegal aliens invading our country."
It most certainly did. Go look up the ABC Nightline interview from 2001. Juan Hernandez said "I want the third generation, the seventh generation, I want them all to think 'Mexico first.'"
If Obama is elected in 2008, who is to say that he won't be a two term president. Also, consider that the demographics are changing - more young and likely liberal voters and more minority (mostly Hispanic voters) that tend to break Democrat, so with that both of your theories go out the window along with the window of opportunity to make some headway in bringing the country back on the right track, instead of veering farther to the left and off track than now, which could well be irreversable !
Posted by: KS on May 11, 2008 08:49 PMIf McCain gets elected then in four years he or someone backed by him would most likely be our nominee. So there would not be any chance of getting a true conservative to be our Presidential candidate until 1216. And, no, I just can't wait that long for the slim chance that we would even be able to get a conservative nominated in 2016 with all the influence McCain's people would have in the Republican Party by then.
It is because we are running out of time that McCain must be defeated now so we will have one last shot at our country in 2012. Otherwise game over regardless.
Posted by: JK on May 11, 2008 11:04 PMPudge you are so wrong.
Incorrect.
Say despite the extreme anger in America regarding Watergate, but let's put that aside and say that Ford won the election in 1976.
You make it sound like he couldn't have won. It was very close, almost as close as 2004.
So, Ford wins. There would have been no Reagan Presidency, no fall of the Berlin wall no, none of that.
False.
McCain says he is going to run a decent campaign this year (I don't know the exact word he used but I am paraphrasing here).
That as much as anything else convinces me that he is going to lose this year.
Your judgment has no meaning to me.
So, STOP ARGUING FAIRLY! Instead, argue with the intent to win.
I do not lie, and I do not enjoy the company of liars.
By the way, though I didn't mischaracterize your remarks.
For example, this is a lie. You said my "plan" is to "lose slowly." There is not a shred of truth to this. My plan is to win. You may not THINK that my plan will LEAD to winning, but you said that I actually PLAN to lose slowly. This is a lie.
For all your attitude leads to is still moving down the socialist path, albeit it slower than we would with the the Democrats.
This, too, is a lie.
We need a change in direction.
You won't get there by being a liar.
I have read Michelle Malkin's web site and the posters there do a very good job at explaining why not to vote for McCain.
If they do ten times better than you do, they still aren't saying anything worth listening to.
If mccain (I don't cap for lack of respect)
So this poster is an idiot.
wins in '08, he becomes the defacto nominee in 2012
Obviously incorrect, as McCain very well may not run in 2012.
In which case, we get him for antoher 4 years or a liberal democrat. Either way, we get a dem or a liberal for 8 years. Period.
Except that no one with half a brain thinks McCain is a liberal. Cutting spending. Eliminating pork. Gun rights. Pro-life. Pro-textualist judges. Pro-civil liberties. Constitutionalist. This has marked McCain's career for decades. It is absolutely ignorant or irrational, or both, to call McCain a liberal.
Moving on to the next moron:
I have this to say-there is no evidence that John McCain will appoint conservatives
Apart from his more than 20 years of supporting and voting for conservative (read: textualist) judges? This is so stupid it is barely worth shooting it down. Name a single conservative judge McCain has not supported. McCain even supported Bork! He supported Thomas and Alito, too, and he led the Gang of 14 which IN FACT secured many conservative nominations.
On the contrary, there is no evidence that McCain would NOT appoint conservatives.
... having McCain in ofice means we have to fight a 2 front war-fighting RINOs and Libs.
It could not be more stupid than to say McCain is not a "real Republican." On what basis is that claim made? Even if he WERE a liberal -- which he is obviously not -- then he would still not be as liberal as Eisenhower or Nixon. Were they not "real Republicans"? When someone calls McCain, or someone like him, a RINO, it is an automatic signal to me that the person is completely ignorant about politics.
And let's face it: McCain is AT LEAST as conservative as Bush, but for my money, he is significantly more conservative. McCain has shown MORE committment to conservative judges than Bush, MORE committment to the pro-life position, MORE committment to the Second and Tenth Amendments, MORE committment to the rule of law, MORE committment to conservative foreign policy, and, most importantly, MORE committment to fiscal responsibility. And even on the issues where McCain is attacked the most from the right -- immigration, global warming, campaign finance reform -- Bush is right there alongside McCain.
Compared to McCain, hell, you could call BUSH a RINO.
These posters (including you) are just a bunch of people talking without any knowledge or understanding whatsoever.
Posted by: pudge on May 11, 2008 11:10 PMI did. You just didn't like the evidence.
False. All you showed is that McCain is speaking to La Raza. That is not, in any way, evidence that he shares any particular belief with him.
I am not even going to read the rest of your post. It is clear you do not want to back you up your claim -- obviously because you cannot -- so I am done with you. My tolerance for dishonesty is not infinite.
Posted by: pudge on May 11, 2008 11:13 PMAnd, no, I just can't wait that long for the slim chance that we would even be able to get a conservative nominated in 2016 with all the influence McCain's people would have in the Republican Party by then.
So you opposed George Bush in 2004? Because McCain is more conservative than Bush is.
This is the dumbest part about all this: people who supported Bush think McCain isn't conservative enough ... ? On what planet?!
What is clear is that people who act like this either don't really understand McCain's views, or they just don't care, because they hate him.
Posted by: pudge on May 11, 2008 11:19 PM
