but yet, so many will follow this man, and vote for him, simply for the (R- AZ) after his name.sad.he's a shadow of his former self, and no longer the man i considered voting for in 2000.
John K. says: From a conservative point of view he is the man you considered voting for in 2000 and who I never considered voting for at all. The problem is I still do not want to vote for the guy and you are lying. You, like most liberals, never would have voted for him. You just hated Bush and rationalized that fact. So McCain, the guy the press loved, is being turned on by the liberals because it is now him in the catbird seat. Gee what else is new from the left. Look at what you did to Hillary Clinton. LMAO at just how lame the left excuses are.
first, i'm not a liar, and coming from you, that's kinda' funny.secondly, looks like you are screwed then.
John K. says: Screwed, not me. McCain will keep Obama from becoming President. But you lefties like to deceive yourselves. I call it flat out lying. You like to think you are going to support McCain, or you once were going to vote for him, but I have learned that when you get in the booth you pull that liberal lever. I just like to call you liberals out and let you know you ain't fooled anyone but another liberal. LMAO I am sooooo right.
cathcatz says:he's a shadow of his former self, and no longer the man i considered voting for in 2000. simply for the (R- AZ) after his name.When you are a progressive you believe that you are incapable of political bigotry. But it's right there for everyone to see. When it comes to politics... We may think we know but we have no idea..
John McCain in all his glory and splendor...It's kind of pathetic that some folks just can't see him for who he is and choose to ignore the facts right before there eyes to take cheapshots and engage in gross generalizations. He is not the candidate he was in 2000.At one time, McCain regarded the religious right with the same wariness as another maverick Arizona senator, Barry Goldwater. But when it became a matter of political expediency, he did not hesitate to embrace the likes of biggots and hate-mongers like Jerry Falwell.Even I am aghast at just how in bed he is with lobbyists, despite his efforts to portray himself as a reformer. But I've learned that that was largely a fiction created in the wake of the Keating 5 scandal.Frankly, it's pathetic that John McCain even became the Republican nominee, that the best that party has to offer is a candidate who's campaign was considered dead last Fall. That speaks volumes about the rest of the Republican field, none of whom could carry the White House in a general election.In that regard, McCain is also seriously hampered. Not only are we seeing evidence that as much as 30% of conservatives might not support him, but the entry of Bob Barr as the Libertarian candidate could put a state like GA in play. The combined effect could be more states in play they we expect(beyond VA, CO, TX).And he is getting absolutely drubbed by Obama with fundraising. He simply won't be able to raise enough cash to run an effective campaign(which we're already seeing to some degree). Instead he'll get help from the RNC, who will have it's resources stretched trying to play defense for all it's Reps and Senators.The only thing John "Crash" McCain will lead this Fall is his party to its slaughter.
1:08 PM, Anonymous said... "When you are a progressive you believe that you are incapable of political bigotry. "the bigotry would be on the part of those who will blindly vote FOR mccain, because they refuse to vote for a black man.sadly, i know too many so-called progressives who are headed down that path.
What if they simply refuse to vote for that black man? Does that make them bigots too?
chad... i'd have to say that's between the voter and his/her conscience to decide. but broadly, it's absurd to say that anyone who refuses to vote for obama, is a bigot. i just happen to believe if one calls themselves a "progressive", then they need to suck it up and vote dem in november, no matter the candidate. i recently heard a caller from pgh on the thom hartman show say that she will not vote for obama, that she wasn't going to let her bi-racial daughter down, who can't stand the man either. she said she will vote for mccain because of what's been done to hillary. HUH?? (she did not elaborate). i support obama, but if hillary somehow manages to pull this out, she will get my vote and my whole-hearted support.its about the supreme court.its about the supreme court.its about the supreme court.its about the supreme court.
this is pure bull! We walk our streets in fear. Fear of being mugged or shot accidently by a gang-banger too stupid to know how to use a gun. I want a presdent who will stop the violence on our streets. Name ONE that addresses that issue. Obama has a crowd, yes he does, but can he make a change? Maybe. But I want a warrior in front of me, because I turned the other cheek so long, I have no muscle.
Anon 6:01: You want a 75 yr old flip-floper warrior???????
I don't know why anyone would even think of voting republican in this election.
Executive Privilege said:I don't know why anyone would even think of voting republican in this election...its about the supreme court.its about the supreme court.its about the supreme court.its about the supreme court.
John McCain is, from nearly every perspective, five times the man George Bush Jr. is. (That's even after his recently unseemly and insincere pandering to religious zealots, the inheritance lobby and a person any man in his shoes would despise, George Bush Jr.)For that and countless other erasons, it is unfortunate that Bush Jr., rather than McCain, obtained the Republican nomination in 2000, and anyone who voted for Bush Jr. once owes our entire country and much of the world an unqualified apology. (Twice, and even years of groveling penance couldn't cover the marker.) McCain's superiority to Bush Jr. as president likely would have been measured in light years.But McCain is a longshot for the presidency today, even though he stands head, shoulders and knees above the man who has held the office for two terms. Republicans had their chance, and blew it. To horrifying degree. And the time for accountability approaches. It is time to clean out the legions of science-bashing, reason-rejecting, neocon-coddling, secrecy-drenched, diplomacy-disdaining, torture-loving, privacy-hating, war-botching, partisan and incompetent Republicans who have infested every corner of the executive branch for nearly eight years.At some point, Democrats will deserve to be tossed out, too. Maybe in four years, maybe in sixteen.(It should be a long time -- thank goodness -- before a president and an administration from either side of the aisle will deserve the boot to the extent that Bush Jr. and his administration have earned a dishonorable discharge.)There is a reason Republicans are being routed in recent elections, and that reason seems likely to deny John McCain the presidency. It is a shame Republicans didn't make a better choice in 2000. We should be thankful that our system and our countrymen are poised for corrective action.
Chad, most voters choose from their gut. They don't go to websites, they don't analyze issue statements. They don't even go over speeches sentence by sentence. I’m sorry that most voters let you down. Maybe voters in West Virginia would support Colin Powell, a moderate conservative black man. And yes, Obama comes off as somewhat academic and aloof, basically somewhat elite. But he has spent time in community organizing in Chicago, which neither McCain nor Hillary Clinton can claim. So apparently “that” black man actually cares about poor people. But it is probably more important to spend time analyzing each sentence of his speeches.
So we are going to argue about any of the points mentioned here in this short montage of McCain? I am NOT saying that his comments are excusable, but could we not create the exact same sort of video for either of the other candidates? Speaking of getting REAL.And if I may throw two more cents in-- yes, it IS about the Supreme Court (as previous posts suggest). I mean, come on, how many more millions of innocent kids have to get ripped apart in the womb before we get it????See priestsforlife.org for descriptions of what abortion really is.And then consider our candidates again.
John K. says: Speaking of Bigotry, how many of you progressive liberals voted for Swann? But to make yourselves feel good you thought about it. LMAO at the hypocracy.
john k. i didn't vote for swann because he was wholly unqualified. period.and to anon that brought up the issue of abortion??? it will never, and should never be overturned. are you going to raise all of those babies yourself? are you willing to allow for more social programs to provide for those families? and do you know that mccain is on record as being for CHOICE????
John K. says; You didn't vote for Swann, duhh my point exactly. But you thought about it, and that made you feel good. LOL McCain is not a conservative. So he is for pro choice. LOL LOL Tell me something I did not know. LMAO
McCain was for abortion before he was against it. Like so many other issues.
McCain is NOT a conservative. And the Pope's not Catholic.
I voted for Swann. I think he would make a hell of a good wide receiver.
Ed,"But he has spent time in community organizing in Chicago, which neither McCain nor Hillary Clinton can claim. So apparently “that” black man actually cares about poor people."As a law student, Hillary represented foster children and parents in family court and worked on some of the earliest studies creating legal standards for identifying and protecting abused children. Following graduation, she became a staff attorney for the Children's Defense Fund.Hillary ran a legal aid clinic for the poor when she first got to Arkansas and handled cases of foster care and child abuse. Years later, she organized a group called Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families. When she was just 30, President Carter appointed her to the board of the United States Legal Services Corporation, a federal nonprofit program that funds legal assistance for the poor.And with regards to S-CHIP, before Sen. Kennedy became an Obama supporter, he used to praise Hillary's role in the creation of S-CHIP: About the latter, Kennedy said, "Mrs. Clinton ... was of invaluable help, both in the fashioning and the shaping of the program and also as a clear advocate."So no, she didn't spend time organizing in the Chicago community, but don't pretend that she hasn't helped or doesn't care about the poor.
To cathcatz:In answer to your question about the care of the children, I give you an unequivocal YES. Know anybody who needs this help? Post it! I'll respond.
To cathcatz again,I forgot about your last question. Yes, I do know about McCain's FORMER (note the operative word) position regarding abortion. He is now on the right track... no pun intended.
Maria, point taken. I had forgotten she has worked on children's and family issues for a long time, apparently mostly from a legal standpoint. For some of us, she has undone the good will she generated in the past. From our point of view.But I was responding mostly to Chad Hermann's shot at Barack Obama. Apparently Mr Hermann is annoyed that Mr Obama makes some voters feel good about politics, since Mr Obama's speeches are overblown, hypocritical lies. As opposed to the overblown, hypocritical lies of every other politician.
Post a Comment