U.S. Presidential Election 2008

Again, I don't get that read. Conq has spoken to the Vet thing, apparently McCain did not want members to get huge benefits after only three years service. That seems reasonable to me. I don't know why else vets might hate him.

Kids? I don't know what you are referenceing there. I bet these kids would rather have McCain around.

As for changing positions, you really can't trust a politician during an election cycle. They will say anything to get elected and both are moving dramatically on policy. Maybe we should go back a few years and look at quotes. Link

Funny how someone can claim ignorance on specifics of abortion at the recent debates, but only years ago managed to not vote to give a living child outside the womb medical care. I guess universal health care is not so universal?

With McCain possibly picking a pro-choice VP, maybe abortion decides this election? It is always a divisive issue. Who knows.

If McCain picks a pro-choice VP, he is a fool and will lose, probably handily.

I'm good, but not that good. It was obviously from the link.

It's already been circulated how McCain's circle of friends and family feel about his adulterous ways and apparently it's old news on Capital Hill how his behavior can be questionable at times. Reportedly, they are hardly on good terms, but in as so much as the former wife will say ‘My marriage ended because John McCain didn’t want to be 40, he wanted to be 25. You know that happens...it just does.’ So goes the skirt chasing and double standards.

Of course both are illegal. But to my knowledge, a grown man's lack of marital integrity trumps a bit of youthful indiscretion anyday. Especially on the conservative mantra of 'traditional family values'. It's counterproductive to the GOP but interestingly, suits the Barack family well.

Yep. But you never know... Would dems get behind McCain Lieberman? Enough to counter the loss? Maybe with a one-term pledge to combat the age issue?

Maybe Fred can can come back and court the conservative vote? It would make these guys happy.

KK, you are dead wrong about his ex-wife- they are on good terms. Also, does this claim of yours that "it's old news on Capitol Hill that his behavior can be questionable at times" have any reputable sources, or is it just more innuendo and slander?

gatzke, the one-term pledge would be excellent beyond dealing with the age issue. The reason he cannot win with a pro-choice VP such as Lieberman is that Joementum cannot bring in anywhere near enough independents and Democrats to counter a loss of evangelical support from having a pro-choice VP. Lieberman caucuses with the Democrats in the US Senate, and his inclusion on the ticket would anger large parts of the Republican base since Joe is still with the Democrats on virtually everything except Iraq. Pick Tim Pawlenty or even Mitt Romney- both would make excellent VPs.

If McCain picks a pro-choice running mate, the whole race will get a lot more interesting. Many people are worried about that 5-4 split in the Supreme Court. If McCain signals that he's not really all that pro-life, everyone will have a lot more to think about than knee-jerk support for whomever agrees with them on abortion.

What would the Rev. Rick Warren do? As he told Beliefnet after the Saddleback Church forum he hosted last weekend:


Leaves the evangelicals with absolutely no candidate, dunnit? And yet Warren has instructed the flock that the only decision they can't make in the election is the decision not to vote. Oh, dear.

Take "slander" and replace it with fact.
Take "innuendo" and replace it with public record.
Then you would have represented me correctly.

Well, if it is public record, why don't you cite some reputable sources. After you claimed, without substantiation that McCain "dislikes veterans and children" and that he is not on good terms with his ex-wife, I don't think anyone reasonable should take anything you say seriously.

Even the Huffington Post (no friend of McCain) quotes McCain's ex-wife as saying she is on good terms with him:


Whether or not someone's judgement "can be questionable at times" is anyhow a value judgement, not a fact or a public record.

Okay, let me clearify then.




McCain is at a disadvantage as his time in Congress reveals just what type of leadership he's really shown. On the record, McCain does not appear to like Veterans and Kids.

Oh, by all means, McCain, pick Tim Pawlenty and get him the f**k out of Minnesota, PLEASE.

Then again, I don't know that anyone should put their confidence in a guy who let a major interstate bridge collapse in his state. Argue all you want about pointing fingers, but you know a large chunk of Pawlenty's electability went out the window on August 1, 2007.

Yes it does. That he followed his father and his father's father. Kind of the family business.


Everyone has life experiences to draw from unless they've suffered a severe blow to the head.


Spoken like a true muppet. Nice work.


Please do tell what this "distinguished senate record" includes. Longevity doesn't make it distinguished.

I'm a little familiar with the guy, having lived in AZ for six years. He was propelled to his position by Keating and Symington, who were perpetually hip-deep in scandals, and followed Goldwater in his passion to keep down those not white and rich. Hell, he voted against making Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Day a federal holiday. You may not remember any of this (because the papyrus has nearly fully deteriorated), or you may not care. But stop repeating, over and over, Obama's apparent minor missteps, because they ain't shit in the grand scheme of things.

One problem is that you, KK, did not do any clarifying- you merely posted content from some blog entry on an apparently far left website by some self-described liberal named Ed Tubbs, and you did it without attribution:
http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/diarypage.php?did=7154

What you posted is one man's interpretation of the public record of some McCain votes. We don't know the entire contents of any of those bills, e.g., if there were riders such as pork-barrel spending attached, and we don't know why McCain voted the way he did, a useful point to consider when you realize no TTer is an expert on Senate legislative rules and parliamentary procedures, which affect how Senators vote.

I think it is very dishonest to post the exact words of others without acknowledging a source.


That's your opinion, one you haven't been able to back up. It's also such an expansive claim on your part that you cannot ever prove it. It's one thing to say he had a problem with some pieces of legislation, and it is another thing to make the ridiculous claim you have repeated here.

bohemka, McCain has admitted the MLK holiday vote was a mistake. He learned something from it, and I don't see how that vote means he would be a bad President. That rubbish about allegedly keeping people down who aren't white and rich sounds like the stuff that made me leave the Democratic Party (yes I once believed that sort of stuff myself).

Well, he's not saying he made any mistake, or learned anything (from any site you'd like it to be from (there are dozens)):




EDIT: You're right, this part of his past doesn't make him a good or bad candidate. Hell, it was 25 years ago. Times were different. To hold someone accountable for stuff that happened a long time ago... like, for example, if you were to question your race's role in society during your explorative college years at the very same time one your nation's leaders (a politician in Arizona) was denying the acknowledgment or honor of one of your great civic leaders? Yeah, why would anyone make a big deal about that during this election.

EDIT AGAIN: This last part was for gatzke.


Goldwater was elitist slime. Trust me.

I am too young to remember Goldwater's Senate tenure, but I don't see McCain as having pursued those sorts of policies.

Just to show you how misleading some of the stuff that Ed Tubbs guy came up with that was posted by KK can be:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll...&vote=00111

This one was defeated by a 59-39 vote. Both Obama and McCain voted with the majority.

Yet McCain gets skewered. Go figure.

I think it's about time for some PE



Weird. McCain (of voting against Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Day fame --- which possibly partly fueled Michelle Obama's racial divide thesis at that same time at Princeton --- which has been hammered in the media and by Republicans as being anti-American) is still in Arizona, and running for president... against Michelle Obama's husband, a black man, who could never be a veteran.

Chuck D is a prophet!

Wait a minute...Isn't a big part of his platform that there are those who need our help and we should provide for them? Together we can eradicate (or at least reduce) poverty? We can provide for everyone? He supports government programs which will cost billions of Tax dollars to try to improve the lot of complete strangers, but can't be bothered to help his half brother when only $30 a mon th would double his present income. Is something wrong with that?

Yes, Sanwald, it does seem inconsistent, doesn't it? Here is something concerning Obama's fundraising chief Penny Pritzker that might be an interesting starting point for further research:


So the Pritzkers like going offshore to avoid taxes. Quelle coincidence. I wonder what their effective tax rate will be while us normal folks pay higher taxes so that Barry O and the Democrats can reward Democratic special interest groups and voting blocs.

Also from the same article:


Yet Barry O and the Democrats want you to think they care so much about ordinary people. BTW, I read somewhere that Penny Pritzker has a net worth of $5 billion, so that $10 million would be 0.2% of her wealth.

Obama brings a knife-

BHO is running adverts in ATL attacking McCain's connections to Reed.

BHO playing the affiliate card just gives McCain the option to play his hand now (Ayers, Redzko, Wright, Michelle, etc). The Ayers-Obama-Annenberg connection may be interesting...

You guys are like a pack of jackals fighting over an empty tortoise shell. Looks like a feeding frenzy, but there's no meat!

Obama's ties to these people are a big deal to you because you want them to be. But they're meaningless. You've made up your minds on this a long, long time ago. You're not going to bring any newcomers to the Obama-bashing party based on flimsy past associations, the content of a 20+ year-old school project, or the fact that Obama smoked dope in high school (who the f didn't?). You sound like a bunch of frustrated and fading housewives with nothing to talk about but you waste all day on the phone anyway.

Take his policies to task. This other stuff is meaningless.

jawohl! well said.

One person says what he voted on in 1983 is so long ago that we shouldn't hold him to that, other people say that how he behaved nearly 40 years ago as a POW means everything, that it shows his character.

I've yet to see any serious constructive stuff happen in this forum, because the Reps preach to themselves, and the Dems preach to themselves, and the indoctrination will continue, because from a practical standpoint, the US has 2 political parties (no matter what you independent folks think), and you are therefore "with us or against us". You can only be.

I think it was Gatzke who said that we should really go back to see what the politicians stood for before the election race, because rightly so, they say whatever they have to say to get elected at the moment, then when that INSANE pressure is off, they can go back to their ideals / platform that made them attractive in the first place.

Are you implying that if we went away from a simple majority, single ballot system (which tends to lead to a 2 party system) that politicians would stop lying to get elected?

Im no fan of bi-partisan politics (although changing our system to one conducive to more parties would require systemic constiutional ammendments - which aint happening anytime soon), but as House says 'everybody lies'. Politicians are going to say what they have to say to get elected if there are 2 parties or 100 parties.

It's quite clear to any reasonable person, that in this instance, regarding the Military and Veteran's Services, that McCain is lacking in real substance and runs long on GOP rhetoric. It's why many Veterans groups are appalled that he claims to be all about supporting the troops.


To simplify it for you. If I was an upstanding gentlemen, an honorable POW, hell hath no fury over me making sure that my fellow Vets were taken care of...That I would not make compromises on. Much like the former McCain (the Independent one) before he was indoctrined into the GOP. And this was even before a presidential nomination was in his future.


Have I not said from the beginning, the congressional record.


Exactly. The chatter is worse than when I'm with my girlfriends. I'm talking about actual issues on the record and you guys wanna gossip about fool-heartiness.

I don't know, I still want to hear the justification for forcing me to help others I don't even know, while the advocate for it will not even help his own half brother?

Is that a policy we can discuss?

Please .. it's no more policy than an opportunitisc McCain hooking up with a billionaire mistress. Moving on to real issues ...


Kind of ironic that all of a sudden there are talks about a withdrawal. Seems Bush liked Obama's plan so much ... he's trying to put it in affect and then take credit for it. Exactly the same strategy Bush employed in the passing of the GI Bill.

No reasonable person would make the claim you did- that McCain "dislikes" veterans. I doubt you actually understand what all of those votes that Tubbs guy cited were (some were amendments to bills). Reasonable people don't make assumptions based solely on partisan blogs- they actually look at the individual votes and the debate surrounding them rather than jumping to uninformed conclusions.

Once again, a majority of veterans support McCain. Guess they know something the blogs on the Obama campaign website don't.


Once again, that is your opinion (copied from others). Can you even comment on the specific pieces of legislation you cited?

BTW, McCain's conduct as a POW was honorable.




Problem is, YOU did not go searching through the Congressional Record- you merely took a trip down Google Lane.


Good. Let's talk about Obama's support for what can be interpreted as infanticide. Of course, KK, will that mean you refrain from misrepresenting McCain's current relationship with his ex-wife, i.e., your false claim that they are not on good terms?

KK, you might do well to notice that Obama was talking troop pullout when things were a mess. Now that things have improved significantly and the Iraqi government wants a troop pullout, Bush is making an agreement to pull troops out- a crucial difference. Obama wanted to leave Iraq in turmoil, Bush is leaving because conditions have improved significantly.

Incidentally, if I am reading this correctly, it seems McCain was one of 25 Senators who voted for an amendment "to increase the amount available for medical care for veterans by $650,000,000".
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll...&vote=00263

Yet you, KK, in copying that blog post from Ed Tubbs, cited this vote as being one where McCain supposedly showed he "dislikes veterans"!

Easily brushed aside without being answered. Again, He advocates a public policy that he personally ignores, I think that is relevant. Where is his moral drive to help others, shouldn't it begin with his family?

Damned if you do and damned if you don't. (regarding the beginning of troop withdrawals)

Reasonable people looking at the congressional record could certainly come to the conclusion and have...hence why there is a hugh uproar about McCain and his Veterans policies or lack thereof.


Tell you what .. you look at the records with my information and tell me if they are legit or not. You'll be using Google no?


Sure, as a GOP, you want to promote right to life (a religious agenda) as a Woman, one should have the right to tell the religious nut cases to butt the hell out of her business. So I support pro-choice advocates. What Infant Alive (a bill sponsored by a right wing congressman) saught to do is circumvent Roe v. Wade. Obama and others said hell no, Roe v. Wade will not be compromised. So while the GOP would love to shoot terms like 'infanticide' and use the usual scare tactics on the public, Obama has stood his ground and will not allow R v. W to be watered down.


Just so you know. Things only started 'suddenly' improving when Obama and others demanded pull out. So yea, I still find it ironic despite the spin you'd like to add to it.

How many votes have these reasonable people actually reviewed? I already shown one of yours was a flat out lie, and that on another vote Obama voted the same way as McCain- does that now mean Obama "dislikes veterans"? How about acknowledging the votes where McCain voted to increase funding?


FYI, I am not a Republican. I'll comment on your opinion here later, but what I am specifically referring to was Obama's support for killing babies who survived an abortion attempt.


This is hilarious. Things improved after the surge began (for many reasons besides the surge) and Obama opposed the surge. I sure hope you aren't saying that Obama's demand for a pullout caused the improvement in the situation in Iraq. Who is spinning here? That would be you.


It wasn't your information- you copied this blog (and I used its links):
http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/diarypage.php?did=7154

It was Ed Tubbs' information (as far as I can tell) yet you take credit for it. Note that I have already found one complete misrepresentation of a McCain vote, and another example where McCain and Obama voted against as part of a majority. That's two out of the eight votes Tubbs came up with- obviously McCain has cast many more votes than this (probably thousands) yet you jump to conclusions from eight votes (actually seven). Look how many amendments were proposed for this bill alone (88):
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d1...mp;summ2=m&

Funny how something like McCain's support for this amendment never gets reported by Obama supporters trying to malign him:

Please, we're talking about an alleged half-brother here (I use the term loosely as there's no definitive DNA evidence to suggest otherwise), who's to even say Obama even knew of his existance. Win the next lottery then you'll discover long lost relatives you were not just estranged from, but I'm sure some you didn't even know existed. The same parallels exist. It's like the Kenyan village that wants Obama to personally improve their way of life. I feel for them, but that doesn't negate the fact that it is the job of their GOVERNMENT to assist them out of poverty? Wouldn't you agree?

It's all so petty, do you even know what you're arguing about anymore?

You must be very dizzy by now as a result of such heavy spinning.

Obama acknowledged his existence in one of his books. He met and spoke with him during a trip to Kenya. You'd think that someone who wants to change the world, would begin in a small way by helping his family. Is $30 a month really so much?

So your compassion and desire to help others out of poverty applies only to those sharing your citizenship? Is that a tribal affiliation showing?

If the Congressional Record is a lie... then I suppose you are free to call it that. I'm sure there are other choice words Congressional members have called it as well.


You're still in the closet, I understand. Roe v. Wade dictates that if woman wants to have her pregnancy terminated, that is her right. Forcing a doctor to, by law, keep alive a baby she expressly did not want to keep causes all kinds of physiological and emotional problems damaging to both mother and infant. So unless the Infant Alive bill also dictates that the doctor will be raising the child, I see no need (or reason) for governmental interference in forcing a woman to become mother to a baby she did not want. Where is the GOP compassion for that child?

Think of if as a DNR report. If you want a DNR, but the doctor has to, by law, keep you on a respirator for the rest of your natural life, would you agree with that?


EDIT: This speaks for itself.

Absolutely. Thank god for independent governmental monitors/watchdogs on the activities of Congress. We need more of them.

what's your point Sanwald?

Yes I do. I'm wondering how I can be asked (legislated) to help those less fortunate, when the man proposing this will not help his own family. It's all good in speech, but I'm not seeing it practiced.

That's the problem. There is no point. Unless OP is waiting to hear from people that actually agree that there is one. Note post 2080 wasn't sufficient, and the question never answered... so he keeps searching. Whatever...

Sanwald, no one's asking you to do a damn thing. Youäre like a little brat tugging on the hem of a dress. Beat it, bringnothing.

My oh my ... Alf has a quite a package.
A nice distraction.

Nope, it's not a lie on the part of the CR, but you misinterpreted it as a vote by McCain against veterans, or are simply lying. Here it is:




Now, KK, explain to me exactly how McCain's yea vote on this motion could possibly be a vote "against veterans"?


I'll never understand the left's desire to kill innocent babies yet preserve at all costs the lives of serial murderers and rapists.

I have a suggestion- before crudely claiming a legislator voted one way or the other on a federal budget matter, keep this in mind:
http://www.cbpp.org/3-7-03bud.htm

I don't think Obama supporters would want their Messiah accused of hating children because he "voted against a bill that would have appropriated $650 million to increase funding for children’s health care":
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congres...te/1/votes/181/

So let's not do it to JMC.

Thats why I am staunchly pro death all the way across the board.

Conquistador ... you can try all day (or until the keyboard implodes, whichever comes first) ... fact is, McCain has not fully supported Vets Services/Affairs. If he was doing all he could for Vets past and present, then I suppose there would be no need for groups like the AFL-CIO to raise the alarm on the Congressional records not making the 6:00 evening news. This overtly or even subvertly sends the wrong message to Veterans despite the GOP 'support our troops' mantra.


I see, you want to justify ONE vote to suggest he 'embraces' the challenges of Veterans in 2008.


And I can't get why the GOP would push to force motherhood on women at the expense of a strictly religious agenda, reduce funding to community social services, build more prisons and all but ignore the educational system. It's absolutely plausible that someone can conclude the GOP platform is just inherently warped.

okay... i just had a big ole laugh at your post ... in a good way

You got caught making an unsubtantiated claim, yet you keep on saying something is a fact despite a real paucity of evidence, so when you claim the wrong message has been sent, you aren't credible. I'd say passing up a visit to injured troops in Landstuhl was a case of Obama sending the wrong message.

The AFL-CIO is a labor union that supports Democrats. I don't know what you are referring to in regards to them, but given previous patterns I expect it to be something other than you have represented it to be.


He's probably made thousands of votes pertaining to veterans, so those few that get passed around and misrepresented by the lefty blogosphere (which doesn't seem to understand how budgetary votes work in the first place) aren't evidence to back up your expansive claim that he "dislikes veterans". Oh yeah, you borrowed that as well... You borrowed the claim, gave the impression it was yours, now you prove it or retract it.




As you would no doubt agree, that is your opinon. I suspect they would say that there are other options. My personal feeling is that we need to continue to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies in order to reduce the number of abortions.

This business about Obama's brother is ridiculous. Have a look again at the article. He never says Obama never gave him any money. He never gives any reason why he doesn't have more money. He never says he even asked Obama for any money, and indeed he never makes such a request through the article. And here are you all saying that Obama should help a (half-) brother out.

Obama isn't proposing legislation requiring better-off family members to hand money out to their less fortunate kin, no matter how tenuous the connection or where in the world they live. If so, he would be inconsistent.

I'm sure you would agree, then, that Repulican-sponsored mandates for abstinence-only curricula for sex education classes in public schools, which has been proven to be (wait for it) completely ineffective in preventing teen pregnancies, need to be tossed out.

This sounds like the people who were trying to tear Al Gore to shreds because it was found out he wasn't using 12W lightbulbs in his house. It doesn't invalidate the message. You're just trying to find reasons to tear him apart, again, something I find rather petty.

The choice of a president/leader is not about harping over petty details, but to look at the big picture, because after that, it's a crap shoot anyway.

But really, if George W. can become president, why are you guys nitpicking over details? It has nothing to do with details. It's a big marketing game. You're telling me that you went over all the details with Bush like you are doing for the candidates now, and yet Bush still won?? It takes the piss out of you folks a bit, doesn't it?

You all have your opinions of me already, so it's pointless to say anything anyway, because the ones I want it to reach aren't listening, and the ones who it would reach are already agreeing. This statement is generally true when said by any one of us I would imagine.

For me, it's not exactly about McCain's abilities. I would like to see the Republicans lose the election to pay for the last 8 years. You can put it all on Bush, but if they are officially a party, then should they not be all held accountable? I don't know enough about the internal workings of the American political system, but can your own party members make a vote of no confidence and get you booted out? If so, that didn't happen, which means they were with him, and not against him, and must therefore in my books pay the price for 2 crappy terms of their party in power. If not, they didn't break away from the party, making them also in part liable for the poor government of the last 8 years.

tossed off for that matter...

He seems like a very modest person (the younger brother) and doesn't have an entitlement mentality. A man of Barry O's means should do the right thing since he and his family in the US have been blessed with good fortune.

I guess you don't have any family members who live in a country that isn't wealthy AND are not themselves wealthy (nothing wrong with that, but some of us do).


For me it's a human issue, not a political one, cinzia. I am for what reduces unwanted pregnancies, and, obviously the use of condoms, for example, needs to be taught as well as explaining that abstinence is also an option. Educate the kids and let them make their own decisions with as much relevant information as possible.

That you choose to point to one or two bills that McCain actually voted yes on regarding Veterans, in his entire Congressional career, is overwhemlingly evidence enough.

Imagine that, a LABOR union NOT following the mantra of the GOP. Considering McCain also opposes Equal Pay ... I can understand.


Contrary to what you want ... I don't have to prove not a nil, because as the record stands...it speaks for itself. What you choose to deduce from it, is on you. But I highly doubt there would be conflict and/or rejection of McCain's support of Veterans if this was all just a mystical apparition...as you openly choose to think.