Republicans giddy with glee over Rev. Wright issue

In an election year which was shaping up to be a downer for Republicans, it seems Rev. Wright coupled with Obama winning the Democratic nomination could spell sweet victory for McCain in November. At least, that is what the Republican Party is now placing it’s bets on.

Story from Yahoo News:

WASHINGTON – Republicans can hardly contain their glee as they watch Barack Obama battle through a rocky period. And why should they?

Nothing else is breaking the GOP’s way this year. But, at least now, the Democrats’ political phenom is tarnished, and, if he defeats Hillary Rodham Clinton for the Democratic nomination, he will enter the general election campaign not only bruised and battered — but also carrying baggage as he faces Republican John McCain.

“We’ve had a rough couple of weeks. I won’t deny that,” Obama said Friday.

The Illinois senator has repeatedly had to address — and repudiate — the ranting of his bombastic former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Obama has continued facing questions about his relationship with indicted Chicago businessman Antoin “Tony” Rezko. The candidate’s patriotism has been questioned. So has his readiness.

On the eve of a critical Pennsylvania primary, Obama caught flak for claiming that small-town folks are bitter and thus cling to guns and religion. Then he turned in a lackluster debate performance. He ended up losing that primary to Clinton in part because he didn’t attract enough white, working-class voters.

Now he finds himself in the midst of competitive contests in two more states. Losses Tuesday in Indiana and North Carolina would further weaken him. Even if he manages to hold off Clinton in those and the final primary contests, Obama would essentially limp to the nomination.

“The bark is stripped off him a little bit,” said Reed Galen, a Republican who worked on President Bush’s campaigns. “Are the folks on the Republican side of the aisle happy to let Hillary do that? Absolutely.”

File this under the “best thing that could have ever happened for McCain” section. John McCain could quite possibly be the luckiest politician alive if Obama becomes the weakened Democratic nominee. Even if Clinton somehow takes the nomination, she’ll take a backlash from Democratic activists who may vote for McCain out of spite if she wins using superdelegates.

In a year when Republican outlooks were bleak, McCain may be in the right place at the right time, despite the fact that he can’t court the conservative vote. He may not have to since the Rev. Wright controversy seems to be turning off moderates and independents to Obama.

Still, McCain will have to overcome the “Bush’s third term” syndrome which will immediately begin plaguing his campaign once the Democratic Party is focused on him after their nomination process.

  • Babs

    I don’t think the “Bush Third Term” gimmick will last long – except in Howard Dean’s mind, of course. Some voters may be uneducated, but they’re not stupid.

  • Michel

    Babs, could you tell me some of your ideas on why you disagree with McCain’s “Bush the Third” title? I’m really interested in reading them. I think of McCain as a quite ethical candidate in this campaign so far, and I would really appreciate to see major differences between Bush’s policies and his own. I really would like to see your ideas on that matter and I promise to read them with an open mind (as much as I can at least).

    No sarcasm at all, just sharing arguments. I think there are pretty valid concerns about McCain’s current policies (the word current being very important) but nonetheless I would to hear your perspective.

    Take care.

  • Babs

    Michel, I would welcome a conversation with you on issues with no sarcasm. First of all, the democrats, especially Howard Dean, are using Bush’s unpopularity at the moment to associate him with McCain if for no other reason than they are both republicans. The same way the media is tagging Wright’s name to Obama, putting a positive next to a negative to try to bring them down. That’s just politics, as insulting to the candidate and their supporters as it may be.

    As to McCain’s current policies, there are many of them, just like the other candidates. They all agree with Bush on one policy or the other, or at least have in the past. I’ll be glad to debate any of them with you, just pick one at the time, please. And be sure that you know what McCain’s stand on that particular policy is – by reading his own words on his website, not a third party media source that may or may not be accurate. Mind you, I may not agree with all of McCain’s views, but I’ll be honest about it.


    Michel u just never stop ever do you ahahaha you always have such an arrogant tone to yourself.

  • Josh

    O.S., better arrogant than uneducated, like yours.

    What I want to know is this. If the Republicans intended on capitalizing on this whole Wright issue, then why have several Republicans including Huckabee and McCain himself come out and said that they did not think that Obama agreed with Wright, and that he handled the situation well? McCain was even prodded by Sean Hannity and said “I know Barack Obama and he does not share those (Wright’s) views”.

    I hardly think that McCain will bring up the topic of Wright once Obama has the nomination in hand, because that would make it all too easy for Obama (or other Democrats) to bring up the issues of various Pastors whom McCain has SOUGHT endorsement from. John Hagee has referred to the Catholic Church as the “great Whore”, believes that helping Israel will help us (or him) to bring the Rapture (which, to him, is a good thing), and that Hurricane Katrina was a punishment from God because there was to be a “sinful” gay parade in New Orleans on that day. McCain actively sought Hagee’s endorsement, as well as the endorsement of Falwell, Parsley, and other psychotic televangelists. Why would he bring up the issue of Wright, when the clerics in his own fold are far more radical.

    Unfortunately for Republicans (and Babs, who is a closet Republican), this election will ultimately come down to the issues, and McCain stands no chance of beating Obama on the issues.

  • Michel


    Let’s talk for a moment without taking for granted other people’s reasons for caliming something. You may be right about Dean exploiting Bush and McCain alleged similarities, but there’s also the possibility that this concerns may be quite legit. So, for the sake of objectivism (the most we can get to bring to this conversation) I think we should stop to take for granted other people’s reasoning. Besides, Howard Dean isn’t the only one pointing out how Bush’s and McCain’s policies are alike. I don’t think everybody is saying that because both of them are republicans. Nobody is saying that Bush and Ron Paul, for instance, have a lot in common just because they’re both republicans.

    If you let me pick the first topic, I say we should start by the Iraq war and foreign policies in general. I think that their similarities in those subjects are most evident and easy to compare. If you want, you can pick the next subject, which can be their similar economic plans of reducing taxes to high-income Americans for “reactivating” the economy; their alike efforts of promoting investments in the private healthcare companies and other subjects you may want to touch upon.

    About Iraq and foreign policy:

    McCain supported Bush’s plans about the Iraq war in January of 2007.

    “I believe that together these moves will give the Iraqis and Americans the best chance of success” – John McCain.

    More than a year later, those results are questionable yet he still insists in sending more troops to Iraq and making them stay there like stationary troops to secure America’s interests.

    Now, you may want to dismiss the article’s interpretations about McCain’s policies in favor of the descriptions of such plans in his website. I invite you to look at McCain’s quotes only, and then if you want let me take some excerpts from McCain’s website as well. Here are a few…

    “A greater military commitment now is necessary if we are to achieve long-term success in Iraq. John McCain agrees with retired Army General Jack Keane that there are simply not enough American forces in Iraq. More troops are necessary to clear and hold insurgent strongholds; to provide security for rebuilding local institutions and economies; to halt sectarian violence in Baghdad and disarm Sunni and Shia militias; to dismantle al Qaeda; to train the Iraqi Army; and to embed American personnel in Iraqi police units. Accomplishing each of these goals will require more troops and is a crucial prerequisite for needed economic and political development in the country. America’s ultimate strategy is to give Iraqis the capabilities to govern and secure their own country.

    Building a capable Iraqi army is a central requirement for ensuring Iraq’s ability to govern and protect itself long after American forces have withdrawn. The U.S. must accelerate the training and equipping of Iraqi armed forces and police to enable them to play a key role in securing Iraq. Only in a secure environment will the development of Iraq’s political and economic institutions have a chance to succeed. Ultimately, Iraq’s future lies in the hands of its people, government, and armed forces, and strengthening them is an essential requirement for bringing U.S. troops home from Iraq. Until Iraqi forces are ready, however, a precipitous U.S. withdrawal would condemn Iraq to civil war and intervention by its neighbors and energize al Qaeda and other jihadists across the globe. This would gravely jeopardize American security.” –

    Has he ever talked about the possibility of having to deal with conflicts in other parts of the world and keeping our troops stationary in Iraq at the same time? How would we deal with those issues? Diplomacy isn’t a choice, as he has stated his intentions are to maintain and increase over countries such as Syria and Iran:

    “John McCain believes Syria and Iran have aided and abetted the violence in Iraq for too long. Syria has refused to crack down on Iraqi insurgents and foreign terrorists operating from within its territory. Iran has aided the most extreme and violent Shia militias, providing them with training, weapons, and technology that they have used to kill American troops.
    The answer is not to enter into unconditional dialogues with these two dictatorships from a position of weakness. The answer is for the international community to apply real pressure to Syria and Iran to change their behavior. The United States must also bolster its regional military posture to make clear to Iran our determination to protect our forces in Iraq and to deter Iranian intervention in that country.” –

    If we avoid diplomacy with those countries, then conflict is even more likely. How are we going to deal with such crisis if we have most of our troops deployed in Iraq, and national troops are implemented in strengthening US borders for immigration control?
    And how would he find the money to move and keep that amount of troops with his own dubious economic plans in play? Respected economists don’t seem to support it, but he moves forwards anyway.

    Now, I’ve never read anywhere either if McCain has addressed the impact on the economy that this kind of troop strengthening would have in the economy. His continuous efforts to reactivate the economy (much in G.W. Bush’s fashion, by reducing taxes to high-income citizens that would invest and thus “reactivate” the economy, with debatable results so far) seem to point out that he has a genuine concern about the US economical problems, despite he wasn’t sure at one point if we were in recession as a country or not hearing the economists concerns about his gas tax plans.
    But I know that in 2007 he supported president Bush’s request of an Iraq war budget that consisted of $5.6 billion. What about that? I’d like to hear his opinion on the impact of the Iraq war on the economy.

    I, on the other hand, agree with Democratic Senator Carl Levin on his opinion about the subject:

    “Increasing the number of U.S. forces in Iraq is flawed strategy because it is based on a flawed premise that there is a military solution to the violence and instability in Iraq, when what is needed is a political solution among the Iraqi leaders and factions”- Sen. Carl Levin.

    Now, my opinion on military matters may be unprepared. I don’t doubt that McCain’s military record makes him more savvy and skilled than me in strategic and military opinions. But is he savvier in military strategies and Iraq war than former Secretary of Defense Colin Powell? Here was Powell’s take, from December 2006:

    “I am not persuaded that another surge of troops into Baghdad for the purposes of suppressing this communitarian violence, this civil war, will work.” – Colin Powell

    After all, it may just be a matter of common sense. Of course, we may be there to secure oil resources for our country, but McCain’s denying such claims:…..ain_iraq_5
    So, in conclusion, I may agree with you that McCain’s previous political record was moderate, but with every new political stances he supports and each vote he makes he seems to work hard to prove his staunch conservative credentials, and he is moving more and more to the far right, continuing Bush’s aggressive foreign policy. So far, is a continuation of Bush in foreign matters.

  • Michel


    English isn’t my first language and I live in a community where Spanish is spoken frquently everywhere, so I have a and obvious lack of language skills, specially when I have to elaborate on my ideas. That’s the reason I keep picking words that are maybe too educated (even for my own taste), because I don’t handle very well common language when I’m writing here.

    To civilized discussions is better to have an educated tone, though. What’s arrogant for you may seem polite for other people. My advice to you? Don’t take for granted someone so easily. Other people may lose respect for you, and that way you won’t be able to communicate many ideas that you may have about an issue.

    And by the way…. matureness isn’t overrated. Want to talk seriously about your candidate McCain? Join the discussion.

  • McCain_Blows

    He who posts under an inflammatory handle is not seeking civil discourse – never let him fool you into thinking that you are the one forestalling reasoned conversation.

    Confucius say: Such a person who needles you is just being a prick. Don’t let him get under your skin.

  • Dem ’08


    LOL….You keep these two at the end of their chain snapping at you just like puppets…LOL

    Where are you Dreadsen? Bert and Ernie need you now! ACTION!…….LOL

    Man that’s good stuff….

  • Babs

    “He who posts under an inflammatory handle is not seeking civil discourse…” And “McCain_Blows” is a what? Can you say “Inflamatory handle”? *LOL*

    O_S, I know you’ve got a ton of facts under your belt on this subject, help me out here. You may have some I don’t.

    Michel, first of all I recognize you have a limited command of the English language and I don’t hold that against you. But you’re inability to “cut to the chase” makes it very difficult to wade through your lengthy post. And I think it also makes you a bit gullible to biased websites and material. If there’s anything you should keep in mind when reading or listening to most of the crap you do it’s that while anything is possible, most of it is not probable. Or even logical.

    Again, all of the candidates agree with Bush on one policy or another. Only McCain is tagged as another Bush term by the democrats. Really now, do you think they would compare themselves to Bush? Don’t be naive, it’s a political ploy, pure and simple. And probably a very effective one, at least for a while.

    You’re scrambling your dates and quotes to exclude present views by different people as opposed to earlier views. You begin your argument with McCain supporting Bush on Iraq in 2007. Back up to the bginning of the war, and read some more. Not only did McCain vote in 2006 not to mandate to Bush a date to pull out of Iraq, but so did Clinton and your candidate, Obama. McCain did support more troops in Iraq after disagreeing with Bush on his strategy for over 4 years, and he was right. We have made more progress in the last year than all other years combined. Had Bush bothered to listen to McCain in the beginning, we would probably already be home from Iraq. McCain has stated publicly many times that the initial Bush strategy in Iraq was a miserable failure. So now, how does that make him like Bush?

  • rd

    I prefer Obama….

    ….but I also like Hillary and McCain!

    Regardless of who wins, we will be rid of George W, and that delights me to no end!

  • Michel

    Babs, if you’re going to start by dismissing the things I say and call me “gullible”, you’re not starting well.

    Regarding McCain, I have to agree with agree with you that there may be lots and lots of biased websites and blogs.

    But none of them… and I mean NONE… can be more biased than http://WWW.JOHNMCCAIN.COM. It’s just not a balanced portrait of his campaign, and it will never be. No candidate official website can avoid EXTREME bias.

    Then don’t call me gullible.

    I don’t have a problem with Bush not supporting, for instance, the gas tax holiday (at least no commenting on it). And there Bush agrees with Obama. It’s okay with me. But where else?

    In politics, as in everything else, there are topics and topics. I try to define if McCain is the one candidate who agrees with Bush on MOST things… or even on the things that are MOST important.

    Do you want to go back to the beginning of the war? Really?

    If I remember right, the only candidate who OPENLY protested against the idea of war in Middle East was Barack Obama. He was contending for a position on the Senate and he rallied against the war even when all the polls were pro-war in that moment.

    So, paraphrasing you, had Bush bothered to listen to Obama in the beginning, we would had never gone to Iraq.

    Do you want me to go back to the present? There were for you the excerpts from
    Isn’t he saying he would send more troops to Iraq to achieve victory? Doesn’t he think that more military presence will terminate the militia, the resistance and the terrorist bombings? Do you agree with that?
    We have ALREADY sent more troops. We have already approved more budget to the war. McCain voted for it. And it didn’t work. So why would it work know? Where is the evidence that shows that our troops are, in this moment, making so much progress in Iraq that we are on the brink of victory? Do we even know what victory looks like?

    And even when all that has failed, John McCain is willing to push forward another dispatch of men, weapons and money from America to Iraq. Why? Which are those interests we have there? Dimplomatic relationships to oil-exporting friends? Are we taking care of the enemies of our money-and-oil-lending-friends? If we want a better situation in Middle East, we need to try to establish good diplmatic relationships with the countries of the Middle East (without compromising lives). Wee need to try diplomacy before even undertaking military actions.

    Our situation in Iraq now is not fine. It may be better, but it’s not fine. And we are debilitating our own National Security by maintaining the war and weakening diplomacy with regions such as Iran. We are losing oil by breaking with high oil-exporting countries like Venezuela. And our economy is failing. We have a declared recession now.

    Things are not okay. So we need to take action. We don’t need to stay the course, that’s what brought us here. We need to change it. And McCain pretends to stay the course on the war. That’s why, among other reasons, he is the candidate that is more likely to continue Bush’s policies. I may be wrong on this, and all the political bloggers out there may be wrong…. but you could be wrong too.
    Engage in a discussion with arguments. Don’t just say I could be wrong. Say WHY.

    And if you don’t want to think, here’s a quick recipe: Vote Democrat.
    Even Clinton knows better than McCain on Iraq.

    Do you wnat to change the subject now? I’ll let pick one. Economy? Health care? Something else? I’m listening.

  • Leslie


    “If the Republicans intended on capitalizing on this whole Wright issue, then why have several Republicans including Huckabee and McCain himself come out and said that they did not think that Obama agreed with Wright, and that he handled the situation well?”

    Actually Huckabee was quite fair and sensible:

  • Michel


    In case you want to reflect on entering your “not answering MIchel” phase again, I have another topic that’s being developed right now, and I think nobody here has mentioned: Supreme Court vacancies.

    McCain has expressed his positions on this matter very recently. Now tell me, do you have Bloomberg in your list of biased internet news too? If you do, tell which part of the article felt biased yo you.


    May 6 (Bloomberg) — Republican presidential candidate John McCain, seeking to shore up conservative support, vowed to model his Supreme Court appointees after George W. Bush’s and accused his Democratic opponents of favoring “activist” judges.

    McCain today said Democrats Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton “don’t seem to mind at all when fundamental questions of social policy are preemptively decided by judges instead of by the people and their elected representatives.”

    The speech, given at the Wake Forest University chapel in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, marked McCain’s most detailed comments on his criteria for appointing judges. McCain hailed Bush’s appointees, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, as “jurists of the highest caliber who know their own minds, and know the law, and know the difference.”

    A number of prominent conservatives have voiced concern that McCain might compromise on his judicial appointments. McCain was a member of the “Gang of 14,” a bipartisan group that steered a middle course and averted a showdown over Bush’s judicial nominations in the Senate in 2005.

    Today’s speech will alleviate some of those worries, said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the Washington-based American Center for Law and Justice. Calling the speech a “coalescing moment,” Sekulow said he had spoken to fellow conservatives who were cheered by McCain’s remarks.

    `Concrete Statement’

    McCain “said the words that needed to be said, especially with regard to Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito,” Sekulow said. “The conservatives needed a concrete point of attachment, a concrete statement from him, and that’s what we got.”

    Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor said in a statement that McCain “promised his conservative base four more years of out-of-touch judges” who would limit abortion rights and overturn campaign- finance regulations.

    Clinton policy director Neera Tanden said in a statement that McCain had voted for “extreme conservative judges,” including Justice Clarence Thomas.

    The next president may have an opportunity to fill multiple Supreme Court vacancies. Four justices are over 70, including 88- year-old John Paul Stevens and 75-year-old Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Because Stevens and Ginsburg are by some measures the court’s most liberal members, a McCain presidency has the potential to shift the balance of the court.

    Capital Punishment

    McCain, 71, took aim at a 2005 Supreme Court decision that barred capital punishment for murderers who were under 18 at the time of the crime. Without describing to his audience the legal issue the court resolved, he said the effect of the ruling was to “brush off the standards of the people themselves and their elected representatives.”

    McCain also criticized another 2005 high court ruling, a 5-4 decision that said government agencies can constitutionally take property for use as a private development.

    “In the hands of a narrow majority of the court, even the basic right of property doesn’t mean what we all thought it meant since the founding of America,” he said.

    The senator, who was introduced by former Bush administration Supreme Court lawyer Theodore Olson, began his speech by almost misidentifying the host university.

    “I appreciate the hospitality of the students and faculty of West Virgin–of this great, great Wake Forest University,” McCain said. “I am catching up with my speech here.”

    Opposing Roberts

    In his remarks, McCain pointed to comments Obama made in 2005 when the Illinois senator announced his opposition to Roberts. Obama said that the toughest Supreme Court cases “can only be determined on the basis of one’s deepest values, one’s core concerns, one’s broader perspectives on how the world works and the depth and breadth of one’s empathy.”

    McCain said Obama’s comments “attempt to justify judicial activism.” McCain said Obama and Clinton, 60, would accept only “an elite group of activist judges, lawyers and law professors who think they know wisdom when they see it.”

    In opposing Roberts, Obama, 46, pointed to the nominee’s track record in Republican administrations. Obama said Roberts “has far more often used his formidable skills on behalf of the strong in opposition to the weak.”

    McCain said the “Gang of 14” paved the way for the confirmation of both Roberts and Alito.

    “And it showed that serious differences can be handled in a serious way, without allowing Senate business to unravel in a chaos of partisan anger,” he said.

    Abortion Rights

    Roberts and Alito have voted to restrict abortion rights, to limit efforts to make schools more racially diverse and to shield governments from lawsuits accusing them of illegally supporting religion. They also voted to limit the reach of a federal campaign-finance law that McCain sponsored.

    Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said in a statement that McCain espoused a “radical, right-wing judicial philosophy.”

    McCain separately today announced that Olson and Republican Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas will serve as chairmen of the campaign’s advisory committee on judicial issues.

    Olson’s participation should provide additional assurances about McCain’s approach toward the judiciary, said Curt Levey, executive director of the Committee for Justice, a Washington group that advocates appointment of conservative judges.

    “The fact that he selected Ted Olson has gone a long way,” Levey said.


    Have a nice day.


    Babs ill help you out here but first…Michel noone can ever answer you completely after this post. I mean im not going to sit an read your post for 10 minutes i mean comone. Second if you want to debate go one issue at a time. It is not fair to start off with like 5 topics and then expect people to come back and answer all those right away. I know it was probably your plan to post a huge post so that if me or Babs didnt answer all your questions you could say that we were avoiding them, when we really werent.

    I will tell you why John McCain is different then George W. Bush. John McCain supports tax cuts but in the way that spending is under control and cut, something Bush failed to do until later in his presidency. McCain is the biggest advocate against pork barrel spending. The guy has barely ever voted for stupid pork, while the other 2 candidates have spent Huge deals of money in pork projects. One big difference between the two is that. McCain unlike Bush will cut back on spending drastically. He will be able to cut spending into the 750 Millions because of his no pork policy.

    Secondly the biggest difference between the two is this. McCain is a very moderate conservative. He will use bipartisanship to the best that he can to help the people of this country. McCain his whole time in the Senate has always dealt with getting legislation passed, not only with republicans but with democrats to. That is something we very much need in our time, both parties working together. McCain has a good support from many democrats and some have come to even endorse him.

    I know I may have not answered to what you have said but I just felt the need to say some reasons why McCain is different then Bush. So please cut back on your huge post and go issue by issue.

  • Josh

    Yes, McCain is Mr. No Pork…or is he? He voted for the biggest pork project that, in my life, I have ever seen: The Iraq war. Not only did he vote for it (along with Clinton), but he has continuously backed Bush’s folly from the start. He also backs the Bush tax cuts, though he says he has a plan to pay for them…which I doubt. With no healthcare plan, a lackluster energy policy, and a foreign policy that amounts to war-mongery, I seriously doubt that McCain is going to cut spending at all.

    Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton may have spent millions on “pork” projects, but I’d personally much rather that my tax dollars be spent helping people in inner city Chicago or New York than bombing innocent civilians in Iraq (and, if McCain gets his way, Iran). Honestly, if he wasn’t a war-monger in the first degree, I’d back McCain over Clinton (not Obama, though), because at least his energy policies are better than hers, and I’d hate to have to vote for someone who thinks that she understands the economy better than economists who have devoted their lives to studying the economy.

  • Michel

    O.S. said:

    “Michel noone can ever answer you completely after this post. I mean im not going to sit an read your post for 10 minutes i mean comone.”

    No? Why not? I have many arguments to back up my ideas, Ijust don’t pretend to say what I believe, but to back it up. You want to argue? Read. Don’t pretend people to listen to you if you don’t use arguments and just use insults.

    “Second if you want to debate go one issue at a time. It is not fair to start off with like 5 topics and then expect people to come back and answer all those right away.”

    I did. She answered (she complained, actually). I answered and she didn’t, so I just asked if she wanted to go to another topic in the case she thinks we won’t agree on thhis. I presented a proposition. I’m just waiting to hear from her, and discuss whatever topic she wants to… this one or another want.
    There were only two topics, one after another. Check things up, please.

    “I know it was probably your plan to post a huge post so that if me or Babs didnt answer all your questions you could say that we were avoiding them, when we really werent.”

    You know? Do you? How? How do you know what my intentions are. You may think, but you know?
    In fact, I’m wating for her answer. She agreed to discuss and she answered. Why wouldn’t you two want to read it all? Take as long as you want. We’re discussing serious things here, and we can’t draw conclusions from mere uninformed opinions. The Congress takes even longer. Do you think they make their speeches long on purpose so nobody disagrees with them?
    I believe you can make it. Take as long as you want.

    “McCain unlike Bush will cut back on spending drastically. He will be able to cut spending into the 750 Millions because of his no pork policy.”

    I was going to answer you. Josh did instead of me. And I’m glad, because he is much more eloquent than me. So read again his post. 😉

    “McCain is a very moderate conservative. He will use bipartisanship to the best that he can to help the people of this country.”

    MCCAIN WILL USE BIPARTSANSHIP??? Talking about appointing far-right judged to the supreme court to appeal strong conservatives and criticizing Obama for wanting “liberal” judges on this…. or his dimissing of Democrats solutions about troop withdrawal or healthcare plans…. yeah, that’s bipartisan. In bizarro-world.
    He even vowed to model his Supreme Court appointees after Bush’s.
    Now that’s being different!
    As I said to Babs, he has indeed cooperated with Dems such as Kerry, but he has also dealt with heavy critics from the right wing for doing so. He’s trying to avoid that. His latest campaign decisions aren’t “moderate”. At all. He’s trying to be just plain conservative. I don’t want a president who breaks in front of pressure from factions in his party.
    Now go to Obama’s interview with Tim Russell and read the part about bipartisanship. Then you can talk to me with different views.

    Now, go back to my “huge post” and read it completely if you want. It’s long, but it’s just ONE BIG issue: Iraq. You can relate it to many subjects. Iraq has to do with the economy, Iraq has to do with foreign policy, Iraq has to do with National Security, Iraq has to do with lots of things.
    But my comment was just about Iraq.
    Want to talk about bipartisanship, or the Supreme Court? Let’s do it.

    But let’s do it FOR REAL.

    McCain also supports the gas tax holiday. So he is deaf to the economists protest as well.


    Josh unlike Obama McCain is not an elitist liberal(maybe yourself) and realizes $30 to some people can really help them even in the smallest circumstances. You only look at this in the wrong eyes. You need to see that this will help the poor and the middle class greatly. I think i might just stop commenting on this webstie because people like you Michel and Dreadsen and Josh just twist words around and seriously I know you will come back at me for this but you might all be some of the most annoyinhg people to talk to. All you liberals act like your on a high horse and its just annoying to talk to. Many of you try to talk on and on and act like what you speak is all truth when really its is nonsense. you all may be some of the most intollerant assholes I have ever talked with. You have made this webstie bad. You left wing always have such horrible views on everything and it is just disgusting to see. I have had enough of 2 page posts that aare just nonsense coming from people who dont look at things from both sides. AND YES OBAMA DOES SUCK AND IF HE DOES GET THE NOMINEE WHICH I PRAY HE DOES. YOU MAY NOT THINK SO BUT MY BUDDY JOHN MCCAIN IS GOING TO HAVE A FIELD DAY WITH HIM. You liberals can bring up all the dirt you want on McCain in your NY TIMES crap but McCain is going to just ruin obama in november and that is well known besides the far left radical wackos.

  • Michel

    No, Obama_S*cks. 30 or 40 bucks don’t help people, specially if the oil companies raise gas price after that.

    You know what really helps people? JOBS. You can say goodbye to them after the fund from highway construction is cut, and the price of oil in the market keeps going up.

    There, some word-twisting for you. Now you can go away from this site if you want.

    People act like being on a high horse when the are RIGHT about the things they talk about. How do you know they are right? That’s what arguments are for. That’s what reasoning is for. If you feel inferior in some way, the answer is not to go away… is to defend your ideas by reasoning, or changing your mind.

    Babs, this is the guy you wanted to help you out with some arguments. There you go.


    Oh yeah did you know that under George W Bush we have a very low unemployement rate and that the numbers show we are not yet in a recession and that since 2001 whas kept the rate a plus but that is never talked about. How does 30 or 40 bucks not help someone are you kidding me. Think about small town people, that is the type of money that may not help drastically but will help in the small ways. McCain is just showing that he aims to all people of this country unlike Obama who is an elitist and thats why he does not support this gas tax.

    I never said i felt inferior EVER! i said i hate dealing with people like you plain and simple because you act a certain way and always give answers to everything. Like you say it is not go away but defend and change your mind, which is something you never do, change your mind. You only have your views and that is it you are complelty intollerant but yet speak as if you are not.

    I would help Babs to but you need to say one issue and thats it and then we will debate that then move on dont go on and on about 5 different ones lets give eachother one and ebate. Also these should not be arguments but hey you liberals always turn them into arguments because you all are always hating on America.

  • Michel


    I didn’t want to mention it before because I was being polite but also because it was blatantly obvious: You are so stupid, uninformed and stubborn that it hurts.

    Employers here in the US shed more than 63,000 jobs in February, the most in five years.
    And you come here and say a LIE this BIG? That we have very low unemployment rates?

    From Wikipedia:
    Alan Greenspan, ex-Chairman of the Federal Reserve and Lyle Gramley, a former board member of the U. S. Federal Reserve, stated in the week of March 17, 2008, that the 2008 financial crisis in the United States is likely to be judged as the most wrenching since the end of World War II.

    The numbers show nothing… they don’t KNOW if we are in a recession. The Federal Reserve is still trying to figure it out due to the declining house prices and the subprime crisis, the full impact of which is still unclear. But that we are in a crisis is no secret.

    So why in the whole world would you say something like that?

    $40? Yes. They relieve as you say, in a small way. But small ways don’t solve anything. What McCain and Clinton are doing is risking a raise in the gas price from the oil companies and they are risking the jobs of many people too. So how does this help the average joe? The forty extra dollars in my wallet will tell me that someone else (namely a construction worker) could be unemployed at that moment. And 40-45 buck in my wallet don’t compensate that. I know you support McCain but this guy in being unreasonable in not listening to hundreds of expert opinions. Do you think he cres THAT MUCH for the working-class? And Obama and the ecomony experts are what, bourgeois pigs?

    As I say, you are acting stupi, stubborn and uninformed.

    Do you know why people like Josh and Dreadsen and even me “always give answers to everything”? Because you make it easy for us. Because you don’t know what the hell you are talking about.

    But lots of people in this board do.

  • Michel

    By the way, for all of you who want to check out the state of our economy, here are some links to the same news:

    So, O.S., we were talking about Iraq. Let’s sum it up. The Federal Reserve warns of a possible recession, 2 million homes are in foreclosure, 200,000 banking jobs are in jeopardy and food and oil prices are escalating. And we have borrowed more than $500 billion so far to maintain this war, and John McCain wants to keep it going. What insanity.

  • Dreadsen


    Good to see you are back. Just wanted to remind you that I have posted twice in our civilized debate in the other thread. And I also apologized for an error. I posted almost immediately and have been waiting.

    On this Gas Tax. It has been tried already. Remember Obama did this in Illinois and has learned from experience that it will not work. Also remember that the funds that this tax supports is already in a huge deficit. Lets say they did save $40 for the summer. It would add much more to the already deficit for highways. 250 economists have urged against this. I haven’t looked into the number ( if ANY) of economists who actually say that this is a good idea. Remember this HAS BEEN DONE before and not just in Illinois.

    Basic Economics. Increase the demand prices go up. So while increasing that deficit and the prices of fuel you are worse off then you were before. When Hillary was on “This Week” and
    was challenged with the fact that tons of economist are against her gas tax idea ( hers is slightly different then McCains). I was waiting to hear “Well there are also 100 economist who DO think it’s a good idea or name at least a couple with some weight behind their opinion but instead she rebutted that she didn’t care what the economist think! That in MY opinion makes it obvious that she is not willing to listen to an overwhelming amount of experts.

    It is no secret or mystery about this being a bad idea. I would like to see some expert opinions contrary to the already overwhelming tidal wave of experts who urge against this.

    This is was leads to the notion of this being a political gimmick. If you KNOW that the house is not going to ignore these facts and even George Bush is against it, then why propose something that is a bad idea which won’t go anywhere?

  • Dreadsen


    I do believe there is an argument that McCain would not be a 3rd term for Bush. Being that McCain has changed his stance on many things indicates that he may not be like Bush who is firm and strong once he’s headed in one direction and has his mind made up. I think if McCain was in office we wouldn’t have ended up in Iraq. I think Bush is the type who can not change his mind no matter how much the tide has changed. The problem is people think that changing your stance in all instances indicate you are a flip flopper. But sometimes after thoughtful investigation a person can change their mind for the better.

    Cowboy politics like Bush’s “Bring em on” is what some Critics try to say is similar to McCain. Like McCain saying Hamas would be his worse nightmare and him not being to Clear on the Goals in Iraq. It give me the impression that Military might is in the forefront of his options and not much of a diplomacy proposal. I mean a “nightmare” diplomatic solution doesn’t sound right. That attitude is part of what got us where we are.


    I guess you siding with 4 nobel peace prize winners, over 200
    economist (who live an breathe this stuff) along with Economists who also support Obama ,McCain and Clinton makes you an intolerant,elitist left wing idiot. I didn’t know Greenspan and Richard Schmalensee (Former Economic Advisor to Bush) changed parties.
    I recall someone who didn’t listen to experts of their field. It was Rumsfeld. Civilians not listening to Military strategic experts who have lived and breathed this stuff for years causes problems.

  • Josh


    If you want to consider me academic elite, go right ahead. Alas, I am only a poor college student, though. If you are annoyed by me, sorry. You shouldn’t feel threatened when people are smarter than you, if your facts are in order and, in the greater scheme, you generally know what you’re talking about. You don’t, however, and this is why you are annoyed (threatened) by others on this board.

    Relative intelligence is irrelavent, you don’t have to be Mensa material to take part in the voting proccess. What you should do, however, is research your position. Coming on here under the pseudonom “Obama Sucks” and spewing garbage with no factual evidence to back it up is not going to be met with an overly kind and polite response. What is good for the goose is certainly good for the gander, and if you’re going to present blatant lies as evidence, I will call you out on it.

    If you’re actually for McCain, then that’s fine, but you should at least know the basic ins and outs of that stance. You don’t even have a clue what McCain’s “proposals” entail, beyond simple rhetoric, which amounts to talking about where we need to be, but without the plan to get there. If there was any rational reasoning behind your decision, people on this board would be far more likely to have a civilized conversatino with you.

    The fact is that we are in a recession. The unemployment rate is up, consumer demand is down, and outlook is falling. As far as the gas tax thing goes, what you have to ask yourself is this: Is 30-40 bucks going to offset the rise in oil prices, which will probably cost you hundreds and hundreds of dollars by Christmas time if this plan goes through? That doesn’t make any sense at all. It shows you know about as much about economics as your candidate, which is zilch.

    I hate to think of myself as an elitist, seeing as how I come from a middle-class family in Maine. I do, however, like to think of myself as informed, and if, in your definition, that makes me an elitist, then I guess for your purposes I am one.

  • Michel

    Oh although that article says Republicans arent happy, i would say trust me they very much are!! I am so happy especially if Obama gets the nominee I daily pray and hope he does because there is just so much trash on him that no republican will vote for him and mostly all independants will swing to McCain because of many simple reasons, McCain is a true american hero, a patriot, a man of honor integrity pride and they will see Obama and will see reveran wright, bill ayers, the statement about small town america and so on. and so on… so yeah trust me we republicans are OH SO GIDDY that Obama gets the nominee!

  • Michel

    No, O.S., the article didn’t say Republicans aren’t happy. Who said were Newt Gringrich, former Republican House Speaker, and Tom Cole, the Chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee.

    And many house republicans are afraid that playing against Obama on things so weak like Wright or Ayers will backfire, because they tried it, and because of that they lost a House seat that had been in the GOP column for more than three decades. Wright isn’t working among voters anymore. Read the articles.

  • Dreadsen


    Hey i’m still waiting for your reply in our thread.


    I’m beginning to think O.S. is a Troll.
    No one can be redundantly this unaware.
    He has to be an antagonist.
    He keeps bringing up the exact same issues even when
    some haven’t picked up any steam or when there is an exact parallel issue with McCain. Or better yet DEAD issues.
    It would be the equivalent of me parading around that no one is going to vote for McCain because of his affair with the lobbyist.
    Hagee is picking up steam now that it looks like Obama
    is the inevitable nominee. They are comparing it to Obama’s rejection of Farakhan and McCains rejection of the shock jock yelling husein obama. And I believe newsweek just came out with and article on McCain and hagee.
    Pennsylvania and Ohio are REALLY BIG Catholic states and they have voiced their opinion very strongly on this.

  • Babs

    O_S, thanks for jumping in the fray here. I’ve been away with a death in the family. Now I’m already tired shoveling through Michel’s books he’s published here.

    Dreasden, thanks for what you said, too. None of the candidates are perfect, but none of them are all bad, either. I was a little more frightened about Hillary, though, when she said what she did about Iran. And I agree with you that if McCain had been president we might not have even ended up in Iraq. I caught his interview on Fox last night, and nothing he said changed my opinion of him. We’ll see what he has to say about Iraq on the continuation of the interview tonight.

    Michel, you just ramble too much and apparently have nothing better to do than copy and paste the internet all day. I have to agree with O_S, this website is becoming a forum for attack dogs for Obama. Josh I can understand, he’s young and at the age that he’s sure he knows it all. I don’t what your excuse is.

  • Babs

    O_S, thanks for jumping in the fray here. I’ve been away with a death in the family. Now I’m already tired shoveling through Michel’s books he’s published here.

    Dreasden, thanks for what you said, too. None of the candidates are perfect, but none of them are all bad, either. I was a little more frightened about Hillary, though, when she said what she did about Iran. And I agree with you that if McCain had been president we might not have even ended up in Iraq. I caught his interview on Fox last night, and nothing he said changed my opinion of him. We’ll see what he has to say about Iraq on the continuation of the interview tonight.

    Michel, you just ramble too much and apparently have nothing better to do than copy and paste the internet all day. I have to agree with O_S, this website is becoming a forum for attack dogs for Obama. Josh I can understand, he’s young and at the age that he’s sure he knows it all. I don’t what your excuse is. You tend to think this is your personal blog, you need to go start you one. This is a news site for the 2008 election that allows comments.

  • Michel

    I’m very glad that you decided to go personal, Babs. That’s a reflection of your lack of argument on issues. The sooner you start to attack ME and not what I say, the more biased, sttuborn and ignorant you look in front of intelligent people. I not longer care for what you say… you’ve proved once and once again to have no more reasons to say the things you do than just pure obtuseness. At least you resist the urge to insult others longer than, say, Dem’08 or Obama_S. But that’s not any merit at all.

    My comments come with articles. Read them, dismiss them, do as you please with them. I don’t care anymore for your opinion.

    And what you said of Josh was too arrogant and ageist for me to stand it. He’s more articulate and reasonable than all you’ve ever been on the last three or four months. My adivce for you is: stop patronizing people. Some are just showing much more clarity than you, and I’m afraid I’ll get frustrated with you and blame your age or anyother stupid thing for it.

    Your last comment was shameful. I hope that, at least, you can see that in the privacy of your computer.