Damn you McCain!!!

[rnatalli]

Perhaps you are thinking of the McCain-Feingold Act that was passed in 2002? Hardly 25 years.

One example. 90% during the Bush term tells a different story. McCain was a much better candidate back in 2000. He has basically sold out now like the rest. Shame really.

 

[unreal.freak]

One example. 90% during the Bush term tells a different story. McCain was a much better candidate back in 2000. He has basically sold out now like the rest. Shame really.

To use the number 90% is not really a good example. The reason i say that is because not 100% of what bush has done in his presidency was bad. Yes hes not perfect, but far from 100% all bad. So if McCain has disagreed with bush on lets say 10% of things, and the 10% were things that Bush Sucked on then McCain may be an ok guy.

 

[mtrycrafts]

To use the number 90% is not really a good example. The reason i say that is because not 100% of what bush has done in his presidency was bad. Yes hes not perfect, but far from 100% all bad. So if McCain has disagreed with bush on lets say 10% of things, and the 10% were things that Bush Sucked on then McCain may be an ok guy.

But, this year McCain was with him 100% of the time. Most interesting.
That 90% is just an average over the past 8 years.
Yep, a huge gamble that he would be an OK guy.
Just listening to the news how Palin is/was a Pentecostal, speaking in tongues

 

[unreal.freak]

But, this year McCain was with him 100% of the time. Most interesting.
That 90% is just an average over the past 8 years.
Yep, a huge gamble that he would be an OK guy.
Just listening to the news how Palin is/was a Pentecostal, speaking in tongues

I hope you dont turn this thread into more religious arguments......in fact i quit responding in the other thread becasue you were taking pot shots at me. please dont start over here doing the same.

The same thing can be said about Baptists, athiest, darwinists, etc.

 

[rnatalli]

To use the number 90% is not really a good example. The reason i say that is because not 100% of what bush has done in his presidency was bad. Yes hes not perfect, but far from 100% all bad. So if McCain has disagreed with bush on lets say 10% of things, and the 10% were things that Bush Sucked on then McCain may be an ok guy.

My point wasn't to point out what Bush has done as good or bad, simply pointing out that McCain isn't exactly a maverick when he follows the leader 90% of the time.

 

[mtrycrafts]

I hope you dont turn this thread into more religious arguments......in fact i quit responding in the other thread becasue you were taking pot shots at me. please dont start over here doing the same.

The same thing can be said about Baptists, athiest, darwinists, etc.

How about that 100% he was with Bush this year? Some maverick, following the leader 100%. Is that an oxymoron?

 

[unreal.freak]

How about that 100% he was with Bush this year? Some maverick, following the leader 100%. Is that an oxymoron?

the question i need answered from you before i can rebuttle is "do you think everything Bush did this year is bad politics?'' if so then McCain has done wrong 100% in your eyes? if he has then how many times has your candidate went along with Bush this year? Im not arguing for or against Bush/McCain, or for or against Oboma. I really dont like etiher candidate for the election.

As far as McCain being a maverick, if he went along with the right crowd 100%, then being a maverick would make him 100% wrong.

 

[mfabien]

To use the number 90% is not really a good example. The reason i say that is because not 100% of what bush has done in his presidency was bad. Yes hes not perfect, but far from 100% all bad. So if McCain has disagreed with bush on lets say 10% of things, and the 10% were things that Bush Sucked on then McCain may be an ok guy.

I listened to 60 Minutes Sunday (CBS) and to Larry King Live (CNN) last night. Both programs had Bob Woodward who's book "War Within" was just released (ordered it from Amazon moments ago).

Bob Woodward had a series of interviews (11 hours) with George Bush on the subject of the war in Iraq. On Larry King, a few taped passages were played back for us and it is clear that Woodward got the story from Bush himself.

See: http://search.cnn.com/search.jsp?query=War Within, Bob Woodward&type=web&sortBy=date&intl=false

Conclusions after listening to the two programs:

- The White House cabinet is running the war and bypasses The Chief of Staff and even the Secretary of Defense on occasion... Bush sent his personal emissary to visit General David Petraeus in Iraq without knowledge by the Chain of Command (Chief of Staff/ Secretary of Defense).

- Most meetings on the war are headed by the National Security Adviser without the presence of the President. Bush told Woodward that he was busy most of the times by other matters. The Commander in Chief is simply not overseeing the war... except for occasional Government comments to the public.

- Since July 2006, everybody, except the President, knew that things were going from bad to worse in Iraq. Bush lied to Congress and to the people of the US by saying that things were improving and on the way to victory. He (Bush) insisted in getting body counts of the enemy as often as possible to demonstrate the progress made.

- The relationship with the Senate Democrat majority leader and with the Speaker of the House (Nancy Polosi) are non existent to the point of break down.

- General David Petraeus is the only top military person with full knowledge of what is going on. This includes a new secret method applied to seek and kill the enemy which appears so effective that insurgents are running for their lives. Bob Woodward knows some of details of the secret endeavor but was advised by a 4 star General that any disclosure of the method would compromise the nation and American lives. Woodward doubts that a new elected President will be able to fire General Petraeus because he controls everything and bypasses the Pentagon.

In the next few days, the above will become knowledge to Obama and McCain. My sense is that McCain will want to distance himself from the Commander in Chief whose dereliction of duty is quite evident. Shame!

 

[bandphan]

and Bob is selling books

 

[Davemcc]

One example. 90% during the Bush term tells a different story. McCain was a much better candidate back in 2000. He has basically sold out now like the rest. Shame really.

Wait...What??? It's one example that spans very near a decade of bipartisan relationship and presupposes a working bipartisan relationship in order to make it possible. Not only that, but it's a big deal to reform election finance in either the house or the senate. Asking congressmen and senators which campaign donations they would like to give up is like asking the piranhas which part of the zebra they would like to save for the vultures. The answer is none.

Now it begs the question, which bill exactly did Obama author and reach out to the Republicans on his own to reach a bipartisan consensus???

Oh, before I forget, Obama announced that he might not rescind the tax cuts because he realizes raising taxes is bad for the economy. Unless he can get away with it, then he will raise taxes. I guess McCain was right again...don't raise taxes. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=5746089

I don't want to forget this either, but it seems that Palin did sign an executive order to send the Alaska National Guard to Louisiana at the request of Governor Jindal. Now I know it's not much in terms of military command, very little in fact, but it adds something to Palin's career that Obama's resume is missing...a decision. http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/259544

 

[Rickster71]

Don't be fooled by the claims of "Who voted 90% of the time with Who"
The do nothing Congress and Senate only vote on meaningful legislation, occasionally.
Most of their votes "Are The Same" because they vote for such things as:

Honoring the life of Percy Lavon Julian - Jan 30, 2008

Commending the Houston Dynamo soccer team for winning the 2007 Major League Soccer Cup. - Feb 6, 2008

Passing the American Braille Flag Memorial Act - Feb 14, 2008

Supporting the goals and ideals of American Heart Month and National Wear Red Day. - Feb 14, 2008

Congratulating the Army Reserve on it's centennial - April 8, 2008
I picked these at random; there are too many to list, and I type too slow; but you get the idea.

I'd like to urge all that plan to vote this November, to use the same logical, objective reasoning when evaluating politics, as they do with Snake Oil audio claims.

Rick

 

[Davemcc]

My point wasn't to point out what Bush has done as good or bad, simply pointing out that McCain isn't exactly a maverick when he follows the leader 90% of the time.

First of all, I need to remind you that McCain has never voted with or against President Bush. Senator McCain sits in the Senate and the president does not have a vote in the Senate. I think what you mean to say is that Senator McCain voted against his party 10% of the time. I would say that to vote against your party even 10% of the time takes a lot of guts, especially considering that it's very likely that the issues he voted against were significant issues, not trivialities. It's that type of boldness to do what's right that qualifies McCain to become president.

Let's flip the coin. Has Obama ever voted against the leadership of the Democratic party. Really. Ever. I guess if nobody tells him how to vote, he finds it just easier to vote "present" rather than make a decision on his own.

Face it, the 90% argument is nothing but a glib slogan to draw in the unthinking anybody-but-Bush crowd. If you look beyond the superficial sloganeering, I'm sure will see that McCain has had serious differences with Bush and the Republican Senate leadership and he was willing to express that dissenting opinion with a vote against his own party's leadership. And of the 90% he agreed with the rest of the Republican Party...well...even Obama agrees that the surge has been "successful beyond our wildest dreams" - Obama's own words, not mine. I guess McCain got that one right the first time, too.

 

[darien87]

Oh, before I forget, Obama announced that he might not rescind the tax cuts because he realizes raising taxes is bad for the economy. Unless he can get away with it, then he will raise taxes. I guess McCain was right again...don't raise taxes. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=5746089

Gimme a break. I'm getting soooo sick of this Republican argument that, "the Democrats want to raise your taxes. We don't." Do you honestly believe that McCain won't raise any type of tax if he gets elected?!?! Of course he will.

I've got news for you, we're already paying taxes, to Saudi Arabia, Russia, etc. The bottom line is, that tax dollars are going to be needed. But I sure as hell would rather that my tax dollars get spent INSIDE the U.S., not outside of it. What I want are tax dollars going towards exploring new types of energy. Not this, "drill till the Earth looks like Swiss Cheese", attitude that the Republicans seem to have. The energy crisis is the single most important issue to me in this election. We're alreay feeling drastic changes in the world climate, and it's only going to get worse. If our leaders wake up and make inventing alternative energy sources a priority, the U.S. can lead the world again and become the economic and political juggernaut that it used to be. Imagine the economic prosperity that the U.S. would enjoy if we came up with the solution to the energy crisis?

Why is it that no one in Washington seems to understand this?!?!?!?

 

[rnatalli]

Let's flip the coin. Has Obama ever voted against the leadership of the Democratic party. Really. Ever. I guess if nobody tells him how to vote, he finds it just easier to vote "present" rather than make a decision on his own.

This statement alone convinces me you have not dug too deep into actual voting records for 2007 or 2008. Check out the Washington Post which keeps records of how senators vote. You'll find plenty of examples of Obama voting against the Dems and with the GOP. You'll also find loads of "Not Voting" for McCain during 2008. Granted with the campaign it's tough, but Obama has a fair amount of votes in 2008. The entire first page of McCain's list shows "Not Voting." I guess that's what happens when you don't work weekends.

McCain: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/m000303/votes/
Obama: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/o000167/votes/

 

[bandphan]

Gimme a break. I'm getting soooo sick of this Republican argument that, "the Democrats want to raise your taxes. We don't." Do you honestly believe that McCain won't raise any type of tax if he gets elected?!?! Of course he will.

Where do you think all this money is going to come from for these programs that are being discussed by the democratic candidate? Its not so much an argument as but as a core philosophy of the extreme left; history shows. Its not to say that republicans dont increase taxes, cause they do, its just politics asking were the money is going to come from?

 

[rnatalli]

Both candidates are going to cost us money. But several economists have run the numbers and found Obama's economic plan actually will cost less in the long run. Especially in the area of healthcare. $1.7 trillion by McCain's policies and $1.2 trillion by Obama's. But I'm sure there are economists that see it the other way.

 

[Alamar]

As others have stated I sure do wish I had a candidate that really pushed BOTH personal responsibility AND individual freedoms and ran the government along those principles combined with a heaping helping of what the founding fathers intended.

As I see it either of the major candidates can't really lay claim to being a champion of both ....

 

[rnatalli]

Someone once said you can judge a civilization by the leaders it elects. If that's true, God help us.

 

[mtrycrafts]

the question i need answered from you before i can rebuttle is "do you think everything Bush did this year is bad politics?'' if so then McCain has done wrong 100% in your eyes? if he has then how many times has your candidate went along with Bush this year? Im not arguing for or against Bush/McCain, or for or against Oboma. I really dont like etiher candidate for the election.

As far as McCain being a maverick, if he went along with the right crowd 100%, then being a maverick would make him 100% wrong.

I have no idea how much he has done wrong this year, I don't take notes, nor am such a political junkie
But, it seems no matter how many good vs bad bills he signed, or all those excuses he has signed, McCain was 100% with him, not 95, or 90, or less. So, he is really aligned with him and just cannot be his own man. Obviously, he wanted someone else for VP, yet picks an extremist.
He would be a maverick if he opposed his party and leaders more than he supports them. 90% is not being a maverick.

I'd like to see how the other republicans would stand on this comparison? Are there any who opposed Bush more than McCain? If not, perhaps he stands alone, if someone else has, no way he can claim that title. But that is just me, no standing on the matter, or ability to make a difference.

 

[mtrycrafts]

This statement alone convinces me you have not dug too deep into actual voting records for 2007 or 2008. Check out the Washington Post which keeps records of how senators vote. You'll find plenty of examples of Obama voting against the Dems and with the GOP. You'll also find loads of "Not Voting" for McCain during 2008. Granted with the campaign it's tough, but Obama has a fair amount of votes in 2008. The entire first page of McCain's list shows "Not Voting." I guess that's what happens when you don't work weekends.

McCain: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/m000303/votes/
Obama: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/o000167/votes/

Might be interesting to compare them for the past 4 years
McCain had a lot of not voting in 2007