McCain Follow-Up

There were some fabulous comments on my earlier post about John McCain.  You should read them.  Here are some things people brought up:

  • John McCain voted to convict Clinton on two counts.

  • John McCain supports teaching creationism in schools.

  • John McCain supports a ban on gay marriage and civil unions.

  • John McCain is strongly anti-choice.

  • John McCain is strongly pro-war and defends this administration's conduct whenever possible.

Now one thing to keep in mind is that McCain is the Chair of the Committee on Indian Affairs, and has the means and ability to leak and sink Jack Abramoff and his ilk, since they dislike him intensely.  McCain might even be conducting a little house cleaning in the party to get rid of the corruption, so he can run in 2008 on a clean government platform.

Don't be fooled.  This guy's as partisan and vicious as they come.

Tags: 2008, General 2008, John McCain (all tags)

Comments

119 Comments

I faintly recall...
That McCain did not support a national holiday for MLK Jr.  Anyone, Fact or Fiction?
by optimusprime 2005-11-19 08:12PM | 0 recs
Re: I faintly recall...
I know Arizona voted against it... they are the only state in the country I believe.  But if I remember correctly it wasn't observing the holiday that was the issue, it was making it a PAID holiday for state employees, which obviously costs more in taxes.  There was never any anti MLK sentiment to my knowledge, just questions of why government employees and students should get out of work and school that day.
by yitbos96bb 2005-11-19 08:54PM | 0 recs
Re: I faintly recall...
And actually, why should we have a National holiday for MLK?  Just one more reason for kids to stay out of school and paper pushing government employees to get off work on my dime.  When they make a National holiday for John Wayne, then we'll talk.
by realrepublican1854 2005-11-19 11:44PM | 0 recs
Re: I faintly recall...
Yes, a child's attempt to rile people.  You need some work though.  You aren't very good at it.  

(Note to Gary - THIS is a true troll)

Yes, lets have a national holiday for John Wayne, who never changed millions of people's lives and made the world a better place.  DId some good movies though.  He has his star... that is pretty much the same.  The better, smarter argument would have been a Holiday for Reagan or Billy Graham.  At least you could make an intelligent argument about a holiday then.

Congress authorized it, they can take it away.  If you feel strongly about it, write your congressman about it.

I wonder what the Intelligence agency people and military for are federal employees would say if they heard you calling them paper pushing government employees.  Probably wouldn't make them to happy.  The ATF guys can get real nasty if you piss them off.

And I question that Your Dime comment?  You come off as 18 or 19 in your postings, so wouldn't it be more accurate to say your parent's dime?

by yitbos96bb 2005-11-20 12:27AM | 0 recs
Re: I faintly recall...
Good Lord you don't have much of a sense of humor, do you?!?  Look up the word facetious and get back to me there Shecky Green.  (As an aside...will the ATF guys be getting nasty at me before or after they screw up Rudy Ridge and Waco?)
by realrepublican1854 2005-11-20 03:07AM | 0 recs
Re: I faintly recall...
I guess I riled you though, so I must be relatively decent at it.  Tool.
by realrepublican1854 2005-11-20 03:57AM | 0 recs
Re: I faintly recall...
the best trolls are the ones that suck.
by turnerbroadcasting 2005-11-20 09:04AM | 0 recs
Re: I faintly recall...
NOTE: Liberals always win against republicans when we deal with reality. Overwhelm them with facts, social responsibility, and kindness, and you will always win. No need for name calling.
by daninvirginia 2005-11-20 05:37AM | 0 recs
Re: I faintly recall...
I'd second that again. reality is in short supply these days. Lt. Dan is kicking some arse!
by turnerbroadcasting 2005-11-20 09:04AM | 0 recs
I've been giving realrepublican 3's
And I'm going to continue giving you 1's for troll rating his comments. realrepublican's comments are well within the parameters of reasonable and well written commentary and our attacks are unwarranted.
by Gary Boatwright 2005-11-20 06:01PM | 0 recs
Re: I've been giving realrepublican 3's
Which I just took back. The dude had some decent comments on the innner workings of the Republican Party, but once he ventured past the pure mechanics he got whacko.
by Gary Boatwright 2005-11-20 06:35PM | 0 recs
Re: I've been giving realrepublican 3's
Gary, you and I will just have to disagree that what he wrote was within the parameters of well written and reasonable.  The rating system is for our opinions.  I know you think you mean well, but lately you seem to have become the unofficial policeman of MYDD.  That is a job for Chris or Scott or Jerome.  If they make you some kind of moderator and that is your interpretation, then that is cool.  Until then, we all have our own standards.  I respect most of your opinions, but I disagree with you on this.
by yitbos96bb 2005-11-20 07:35PM | 0 recs
Here's a troll rating for just for you
For an unjustified personal attack and for trying to be a comment Nazi and telling me what type of comments I can and cannot post.
by Gary Boatwright 2005-11-20 08:26PM | 0 recs
Re: I've been giving realrepublican 3's
Just in the interest of promoting reason, it should be quite clear that there are only about 4 uses for the miserably flawed rating system. I give 3s for stuff that is very significant, or very well researched, or dug up from great depths, or just nifty, etc. I sometimes give 0s when I come across stuff like advertisements, inane lists of crap, etc. I might consider giving 0s when someone who is very broadly opposed to the principles espoused by the forum takes too big a bite out of our bandwidth. But I would not down-rate trolls unless the start eating up  more than a little bandwidth.
by blues 2005-11-21 01:58AM | 0 recs
Have some zeros yitbos
You just earned four zeros for the two you gave me. If you want to keep going down this road it is fine with me. I'll dump every ounce of mojo I've got on your scurvy troll butt.
by Gary Boatwright 2005-11-21 03:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Have some zeros yitbos
Gary,

DOn't call me a troll.  Nothing in my comments are trollish.  I hid your comments because they were extremely trollish at their heart.  

I live in Chicago, please feel free to come and we can discuss this in person.  I would love to meet you and see why you are so miserable and what makes you tick.  I am not sure why you are a bitter old man, but seriously, don't threaten me over the internet.  Don't be that kind of a loser.  

by yitbos96bb 2005-11-21 12:54PM | 0 recs
I Disagree with McCain on a lot of things
But one thing that i like about for him is that he seems to Respect the Senate and it's rules.  I think he respects the Minority and what it has to say even he disagrees with it's views. But i would'nt vote for the guy way to Conservative for me.
by Liberal 2005-11-19 08:18PM | 0 recs
Re: I Disagree with McCain on a lot of things
Such respect for the Senate that he voted to convict Clinton on bullshit charges.  Such respect.
by Matt Stoller 2005-11-19 08:21PM | 0 recs
Re: I Disagree with McCain on a lot of things
Lets call a spade a spade here.  Clinton was impeached due to bitter partisanship.  BUT, he did lie under oath and had he not cut a deal would have been prosecuted for perjury.  The big question became whether that was an impeachable offense GIVEN that it had nothing to do with his presidency.  I feel no as most Dems and moderates do.  The GOP felt differently.  The charges should NEVER have been brought, but I wouldn't call them total bullshit... Clinton did break the law... he just shouldn't have been impeached for it since the perjury had nothing to do with his elected office.  A good example of when it should be used would be Reagan.  If it was proven that Reagan lied under oath during the Contra hearings, he should be impeached because his perjury was about his job as president.  Same if Bush43 is found to have obstructed justice in the Libby or Rove cases OR conspired to out Plame.  If so, the crime he committed was a gross abuse of his power as well as illegal and should lead to impeachment.  
by yitbos96bb 2005-11-19 08:52PM | 0 recs
It Was Total Bullshit
The Whitewater investigation had found nothing, because there never was anything to find.  The Pillsbury Report in 1995 was the very last nail in that coffin. Even Ken Starr knew it was over, and tried to bow out, to take a position at Pepperdine.  

But the wignut army wouldn't let him do that. So he went out and concocted a trap.  In doing so, he destroyed the last shreds of his reputation, but he did manage to trap Clinton.  And, in doing so, he discredited the Special Counsel law--which was one of the GOP's top priorities since Watergate.  It was, in short, a 7-10 split--the highpoint of GOP political skulduggery, until the 2000 election, that is.  And every single person who voted for contributed to it.  Every one of them is responsible for trying to undermine our democracy. Every one of them is despicable. Every one of them is politically evil.

Does that mean Clinton should have gone unpunished?  No, not necessarily. Censure would have acceptable to a substantial majority of the American people.  But the GOP had absolutely no interest in that.  And that's the final give-away that tells you the whole affair had less than nothing to do with justice.  It was a pure power play.  Nothing more, nothing less.

p.s. For those who don't know, I am not a Clinton fan. I never voted for him, I'm proud to say.  But not liking his politics is no excuse for trying to undermine our system of government.

by Paul Rosenberg 2005-11-19 10:33PM | 0 recs
Re: It Was Total Bullshit
All I was saying is Clinton broke the law.  I was actually referring to the perjury during the Paula Jones trial... not Whitewater.  But again, I don't think that that perjury was impeachable for two reasons... 1) it had nothing to do with abusing the presidency and didn't effect him as a president and 2) He was not indicted on perjury charges... until he was, impeachment was unthinkable.  Censure was the route to go, but they got greedy and it backfired.  Clinton cut a deal after leaving office (or a few days before I can't remember) and all was good... ultimately though, he did perjure himself.  
by yitbos96bb 2005-11-19 11:10PM | 0 recs
Re: It Was Total Bullshit
In case I didn't make it clear enough, I actually like Clinton, thought he was a good president and the impeachment was a purely political gambit of revenge.
by yitbos96bb 2005-11-20 12:05AM | 0 recs
But Paula Jones/Lewinsky Followed From Whitewater
The only reason that Starr got involved was:

(1) He was still around, because he didn't shut down Whitewater when it was obvious there was no there there.

(2) The wingnuts insisted he had to nail Clinton for something, and so he kept branching out.

And don't forget, the root of the whole thing was Rehnquist's court packing of the panel that appointed Starr.  The entire Republican establishment was involved in this witch-hunt.

by Paul Rosenberg 2005-11-20 12:24AM | 0 recs
Re: But Paula Jones/Lewinsky
I understand what you are saying.  We are actually saying the same thing... the impeachment was BS.  You take it a step further by saying the investigation shouldn't have happened, which is a fair point as well.  Ultimately, we believe the same things on this issue though.
by yitbos96bb 2005-11-20 12:32AM | 0 recs
Re: But Paula Jones/Lewinsky
No, actually.  You say that the conviction vote was fine because the GOP 'felt' it was fine.  Feelings do not high crimes and midemeanors make.
by Matt Stoller 2005-11-20 07:00AM | 0 recs
Troll fights can get confusing
We seem to have two trolls arguing over which one is a real troll. I need to get a better score card.
by Gary Boatwright 2005-11-20 06:07PM | 0 recs
Re: But Paula Jones/Lewinsky
Matt,

Seriously, you seem like an intelligent person, so to make the above statement that is SO GROSSLY INCORRECT, just blows my mind.  

I said in every part of this thread that the impeachment was wrong.  If I feel the impeachment was wrong, that means I think that those who voted to convict are wrong as well.  I NEVER SAID THE CONVICTION VOTE WAS FINE; anyone actually paying attention to what was written can easily see that.

I am and always have been a big Clinton fan.  I have said at every turn the impeachment was wrong.  To make that irresponsible and false statement about what I wrote makes me question why Jerome would give you front page access.

I did say that Clinton committed perjury in the Paula Jones case.  He did.  He admitted as much when he took his plea bargain right after he left office.  But I ALSO SAID CLINTON SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IMPLEACHED FOR IT.  This means that he shouldn't have been impeached and there should not have been a conviction vote.  Never did I say it was fine.  Never did I say that feelings made a High Crime and Misdemeanors.  

I would ask you to apologize for the statement you made.  Go back a re-read everything.  If you still think that I said that the Conviction vote was fine, I would ask you to cite specific examples from my posts in this thread.  Either way, your insinuation is incorrect.

by yitbos96bb 2005-11-20 07:26PM | 0 recs
Re: But Paula Jones/Lewinsky
"In case I didn't make it clear enough, I actually like Clinton, thought he was a good president and the impeachment was a purely political gambit of revenge. "

Just to help you out Matt, here is my post from yesterday early morning.  My statement that the impeachment was a political gambit of revenge is a pretty good indication that I DO NOT think the GOP conviction vote was fine.  But since you weren't really part of the conversation I was having with Paul, I can see how you might have missed it... there is a lot going on in this thread.  Again, I would ask you to read everything before making a comment like you did.

by yitbos96bb 2005-11-20 07:31PM | 0 recs
Re: But Paula Jones/Lewinsky
The charges were completely trumped up, they were complete bullshit.  Ken Starr repeatedly committed illegal acts (leaking to the press), and in doing so violated Clinton's civil rights.  It was completely political.
by Matt Stoller 2005-11-21 06:25AM | 0 recs
Re: But Paula Jones/Lewinsky
Matt, what part of the Bold do you fail to read.  I AGREE WITH YOU THE IMPEACHMENT WAS POLITICAL.  I am not sure why you are making an issue out of this when I agree that the impeachment was Bullshit and that Ken Starr is scum.
by yitbos96bb 2005-11-21 12:59PM | 0 recs
Do you really want to start a ratings war?
Allow me to be perfectly clear. Back off or prepare to be humiliated.

This is your only warning.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-11-20 08:29PM | 0 recs
Probably Against All Rules - I Repeat This.
Just in the interest of promoting reason, it should be quite clear that there are only about 4 uses for the miserably flawed rating system. I give 3s for stuff that is very significant, or very well researched, or dug up from great depths, or just nifty, etc. I sometimes give 0s when I come across stuff like advertisements, inane lists of crap, etc. I might consider giving 0s when someone who is very broadly opposed to the principles espoused by the forum takes too big a bite out of our bandwidth. But I would not down-rate trolls unless they start eating up more than a little bandwidth.
by blues 2005-11-21 02:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Do you really want to start a ratings war?
Grow up Gary.  It's a blog.  Most of us don't know anyone in person.  Only someone very insecure would threaten people over the internet.  And for anything you write ot humiliate me would have to make me pretty insecure.  I'm not.  You trash my account, I sign up for another one.  SO why make a stupid threat like that.  Someone your age should be a bit more mature than this.  Stop thinking of it as a ratings war.  It isn't.  
by yitbos96bb 2005-11-21 12:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Do you really want to start a ratings war?
And Gary, seriously you really need to learn what a troll is.  I ahve posted on this board for over a year a half.  I DON'T post incindiary posts stating all progressives are idiots.  I proudly support the Democratic Party and Progressive values.  It's cool you feel your opinion is the ONLY right one, but because someone disagrees with you, it doesn't make them a troll.  You throw out that remark as much as the hardcore theocons throw out the "Evil Liberal" label.  I respect your opinions, but I would bet you attack people on this site more than anyone else in MYDD.  
by yitbos96bb 2005-11-21 01:05PM | 0 recs
Re: It Was Total Bullshit
Rosemeister - you're right about the Wingnuts, but not about Starr. The trap was concocted by Newt Gingrich, not Ken Starr. He was supposed to be playing in his sandbox. But the house and senate support for the dog and pony that ensued, was all Newt. And incidentally, this thing changed American politics.

Attention to detail. Rosenberg. Its important. Ken Starr wasn't into trapping anyone. It was Newt.

by turnerbroadcasting 2005-11-20 03:25AM | 0 recs
Re: It Was Total Bullshit
Untrue.  Tom Delay was the architect, and Starr was a major accomplice.
by Matt Stoller 2005-11-20 07:01AM | 0 recs
Re: It Was Total Bullshit
Starr was definately driving the bus that is for sure.  I agree with Paul, that Starr abused his position greatly.  And Paul brought up a good point... If Starr had STOPPED when he did, then Clinton might never have committed perjury in the Jones trial.
by yitbos96bb 2005-11-20 07:38PM | 0 recs
Re: It Was Total Bullshit
You had better watch out or you're going to be in line for a pulitzer rosenberg.  The fact that America spent a cool 20 million for a glorified episode of "cheaters" that involved giving the house and senate a free partisan vacation...  Thats one fact that could be repeated forty times and I would never get tired of it. As much as I love newt, I hate the idea that he thinks of himself as a "conservative" if he's willing to pay that much for a dog and pony show.
by turnerbroadcasting 2005-11-20 09:10AM | 0 recs
Re: I Disagree with McCain on a lot of things
WHAT????????????  Can I buy whatever you're smoking????  You freely write that indeed WJC committed perjury.  Your rational for not impeaching him is that his lying under oath was not related to issues regarding the Presidency.  Did you read what you wrote?  Who are we speaking of here?  Pee Wee Herman?  Bozo the Clown?  Forrest Gump?  We are speaking of the PRESIDENT of the UNITED STATES of AMERICA!!!  The man is responsible for UPHOLDING the LAWS of the UNITED STATES of AMERICA!  By lying under oath...regardless of the issue, the issue is irrelevant!, the man FAILED to uphold and adhere to the oath of office he swore upon!!!  I understand the man was trying to get out of getting caught cheating on his wife...I'd lie too to get out of that, but I'M NOT THE PRESIDENT AND I DIDN'T SWEAR INFRONT OF THE WORLD THAT I'D PRESERVE, PROTECT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!  The issue about which he lied has NO relevance...the relevance is that he corrupted his oath of office and BROKE THE LAW!
by realrepublican1854 2005-11-20 12:08AM | 0 recs
FUCK YOU!
You're an idiot, a Republican and a troll.  Three strikes. You're out.

Four, actually, for all the screaming in place of logic.

by Paul Rosenberg 2005-11-20 12:26AM | 0 recs
Re: FUCK YOU!
Hey fun boys. Go get a room.
by turnerbroadcasting 2005-11-20 03:23AM | 0 recs
Re: FUCK YOU!
That's some nice talk.  I didn't throw any personal punches at you.  You're an author?  I trust you have better luck with vocabulary selections for your book than you utilize here.
by realrepublican1854 2005-11-20 03:53AM | 0 recs
Re: FUCK YOU!
Does this mean you two won't be getting a room after all..?
by turnerbroadcasting 2005-11-20 06:19AM | 0 recs
Re: FUCK YOU!
ROTFLMAO!
by yitbos96bb 2005-11-20 07:39PM | 0 recs
Re: I Disagree with McCain on a lot of things
We will simply have to agree to disagree.  When you grow up, maybe you will understand the difference.  
by yitbos96bb 2005-11-20 12:28AM | 0 recs
Re: I Disagree with McCain on a lot of things
And there is nothing in the constitution about Perjury.  SO he didn't break his oath to preserve protect and defend the constitution.  Perjury is not in that document it is a legislative law.  
by yitbos96bb 2005-11-20 12:30AM | 0 recs
Re: I Disagree with McCain on a lot of things
American Heritage Dictionary definition of "perjury"...item #2:  "The breach of an oath or promise."

United States Constitution, Article II, Section IV:  "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

Isn't perjury a crime?

by realrepublican1854 2005-11-20 03:42AM | 0 recs
Crime vs. High Crime
It depends on the definition of "high" I guess.

And the man did say he never inhaled!

(ducks)

by Tito 2005-11-20 04:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Crime vs. High Crime
move. on.
by turnerbroadcasting 2005-11-20 09:05AM | 0 recs
Jaywalking is a crime
There are all kinds of "crimes" that do not warrant impeachment. Perjury is so common in civil courts that jurors are routinely given jury instructions that one of their primary functions is to decide the truthfulness of witnesses as well as the testimony of opposing parties.

If perjury were a serious crime, nearly every civil trial would result in a perjury charge against the losing party. Perjury in a civil trial is nowhere near as serious as treason or bribery.

On the other hand, Bush has repeatedly lied about matters that directly affect the nation as well as national security. It is objectively true that Bush is the biggest liar in the history of American politics and the most corrupt President in history.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-11-20 06:45PM | 0 recs
So then...
By your logic, Libby should be convicted as well?  I just want to see if all of us are being consistent.
by Tito 2005-11-20 04:28AM | 0 recs
Re: So then...
You bet.  Hang 'em all, let God sort 'em out.
by realrepublican1854 2005-11-20 04:43AM | 0 recs
Re: I Disagree with McCain on a lot of things
So you support impeaching Bush for his lies of ommission about WMD, Nuclear reconstitution, Uranium and 9/11 connections to Iraq.  All of which were bogus.  All of which he personally knew were bogus when he spoke about them.  All of the statements by Cheney that he could have refuted and stopped.  Bush lied and got people killed.  Clinton was asked a question, a personal question he should never have been asked in a case that should never have come up in the first place.  I dont care that he lied about an affair.  He didn't kill anyone.  All he did was stain a perfectly good dress.  Bush ahas killed thousands of Americans in a bogus war that doesn't serve to protect the U.S.  He has killed tens if not hundreds of thousands of Iraqis that didn't desire death as a form of liberty.  Clinton is out of office.  he was a great president outside of his pursuit of gun control and a debacle in Somolia.  Bush?  Bush is a toad that will leave office in shame.  You can support him and apologize for him all you want.  You aren't going to snow anyone here.  In 2006 Dems will begin to retake Convgress.  If they succeed this President will be investigated and the truth that sits right in front of us but which the current Congress won't act on will lead to his impeachment.  It will be for something real and powerful.  Bush's power is gone and the idea of a permanent Republican majority is toast.  Congratulations.
by jrflorida 2005-11-20 06:09AM | 0 recs
Re: I Disagree with McCain on a lot of things
A mushroom cloud headed towards America..? Smoking guns? Nuclear threat? Smearing anyone who disagrees with you?  Destroying CIA operatives if they tell the truth?

What about a first-ever "pre emptive self defense". There was this massive LIE. Not a little "lie of ommision".

You don't need to be wearing a milk mustache on your face to want to go chasing them down the hallway for this stuff.

by turnerbroadcasting 2005-11-20 06:21AM | 0 recs
Re: I Disagree with McCain on a lot of things
You wanna prove for fact that President Bush knew he was lying?  I can prove for fact that Slick Willy perjured himself.  If you can prove for FACT that President Bush knew he was lying and led us into war on that premise, then I'd be for kicking him out.  Otherwise, just more hyperbole because you don't like him.
by realrepublican1854 2005-11-20 06:21AM | 0 recs
Re: I Disagree with McCain on a lot of things
You have to be completely up Bush's ass not to see that he lied.  The problem with proving it is they won't investigate it.  Republicans control the process.  And as you can see, discussing it is to bring an attack of being traitorous and unpatriotic.  He protests too much.  No need to prove it right now.  Its as plain as day.  The evidence that is out in the public is all too clear.  This isn't about clinton.  Its a divsersion to suggest that it is.  If it were we are talking about a lie over sex vs a lie that took us to WAR.  Clinton may have lied but Bush lied and killed people.  There is a certain degree of importance that goes alongwith that.  Bush lied and the investigations that will eventually take place will prove it.  But for now we will go with the fact that its true based on everything we've seen and by their over the top denials.  You are a toad to defend him.
by jrflorida 2005-11-20 06:49AM | 0 recs
Re: I Disagree with McCain on a lot of things
Bush is so scared of being caught both he and Cheney are scared to death of being put under oath and facing Congress in front of the American people.  Bush leaves no stained blue dress, he just leaves the staine duniforms of men and women of this country.  blood that is not his own but he is none the less responsible for.  Defend him and that blood becomes your responsibility as well.  I'll take ownereship for a little piece of a blue dress.  Do you take owneership for 2000 plus Americans and ten thousand plus Iraqis?
by jrflorida 2005-11-20 06:53AM | 0 recs
Re: I Disagree with McCain on a lot of things
lol. thats why the guy is MIA.  This little trip is the longest stint outside of the US without some defined agenda yet, back to back. he's so totally trying to run away from his problem.

someone needs to give him a good stiff drink.

by turnerbroadcasting 2005-11-20 09:07AM | 0 recs
Re: I Disagree with McCain on a lot of things
He deserves a welcome home party when he gets back.
by jrflorida 2005-11-20 09:11AM | 0 recs
Re: I Disagree with McCain on a lot of things
The books that have been written compiling Bush's lies could form their own section in any book store. Asking for proof that Bush lied is like asking for proof that the sky is blue and water is wet.

The standard freeper defense for Bush is that he is dumb as a rock and so uninformed that if he claims the moon is made out of green cheese, he was just given bad intel.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-11-20 06:39PM | 0 recs
One data base of Bush's lies
Here's a searchable data base of Bush Administration Lies just about Iraq.

Here's just one of the books about Bush's lies:

Review:

"Any American who cares about his or her country...[should] read it."
                               James Carvile

Do you care about your country realrepublican?

by Gary Boatwright 2005-11-21 04:00AM | 0 recs
Re: I Disagree with McCain on a lot of things
Well perhaps whenever you mature, you'll realize that Clinton's lie never killed anyone, that Clinton's life never affected anyone (except for Hillary and Monica), and that Clinton's lie affected policy.

On the other hand, your boy bush and cheney lied to the American public about the Iraqi War, and obviously used 9/11 and synthesized intellegence as an excuse to go in. As a result, Thousands of Americans have died, Tens of thousands of Americans have been wounded, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civillians have died. How can you condone this? Simply, you can't. You're wrong and you know you're wrong. Now go home.

Yet Republicans like Kay Bailey Hutchison still insist that "Perjury is just a technicality" even when related to national security. Right... that's the Republican party for you.

by KainIIIC 2005-11-20 06:38AM | 0 recs
Re: I Disagree with McCain on a lot of things
hey! clintons lie killed me. I mean, I cracked up! that guy is just a killer! "I did not have relations with that woman" woo-hoo!! give me a cigar!!
by turnerbroadcasting 2005-11-20 09:07AM | 0 recs
Re: I Disagree with McCain on a lot of things
Actually, wasn't there a big spike in cigar sales after the report came out.  I seem to remember that for some reason.  So he helped Cigar store owners by increasing sales.
by yitbos96bb 2005-11-20 07:43PM | 0 recs
My bad
I was mistaken. You are a troll. It is not possilble to condemn Clinton and defend Bush on the issue of lying.
by Gary Boatwright 2005-11-20 06:05PM | 0 recs
Could you clarify one little thing?
Do you believe that Bush has restored dignity to the White House and the office of the Presidency?

If your answer is yes, please explain with some specificity how he did that.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-11-20 08:31PM | 0 recs
Re: I Disagree with McCain on a lot of things
If I were on a jury that was deciding whether to convict a man for lying under oath in an open proceeding about a question of whether he had cheated on his wife, I would be legally bound to find that man not guilty. There are instances in which the spirit of the law must trump the letter of the law. That is the reality.
by blues 2005-11-21 02:25AM | 0 recs
Re: I Disagree with McCain on a lot of things
You are ready, I'm sure, to throw Libby in the gas chamber for perjury, yet Clinton's perjury is okay with you and your ilk....am I wrong in how you feel about it or are you indeed just another hypocritical lib?
by realrepublican1854 2005-11-19 11:46PM | 0 recs
Re: I Disagree with McCain on a lot of things
If you want to have an actual discourse, then great.  I welcome a dissenting opinion.  But using an ignorant phrase like hypocritical lib, weakens any points you might bring up.  Act like a grownup, not a little child.

Read again what I wrote.  Clinton should have punished for perjury.  Like many criminals, he cut a deal and was not prosecuted.  Case Closed.  NO he should not have been impeached for it.  His perjury had NOTHING to do with

Libby lied under oath and don't forget that nasty conspiracy charge.  If it was about some business dealings he had, then yes, he could have gotten a deal like Clinton's.  However, Libby (and a few others) weakened National Security.  They exposed a CIA agent's identity.  If Fitzgerald had enough to convict that charge, then absolutely, Libby should go to prison for life as a traitor to this great country.  Given that he lied about it and conspired to do it, he deserves a LOT of jail time.

The key difference is Libby abused the powers of his office in this case.  He jeopardized national security for a grudge.  He violated his Security Clearance.  All in the name of politics.

Clinton, on the other hand, lied in a civil trial about an affair.  He gave disengenous answers and tried to disect what constitutes sex.  This perjury though had nothing to do with his day to day operations as President.  He deserved to be punished for the perjury (and he cut a deal so he was), but given his crime had nothing to do with the presidency, he did not deserve impeachment.  Given that not even a majority voted to convict on any count, many Senators agreed with me.  

And I would feel the same way if W had lied about an affair to a jury.  He should not be impeached for that.  However, if it turns out he knew about and conspired to out Plame OR it is proven he knowingly provided false information to the UN and Congress to get authorization for the Iraq War, then yes, he should be impeached.  Any Democratic Party President who does the same thing should be impeached as well.  That is beyond partisanship... it is about what is best for the nation.  

by yitbos96bb 2005-11-20 12:18AM | 0 recs
Re: I Disagree with McCain on a lot of things
I agree with you at least in the sense that the vote should have been a unified one, from both Democrats and Republicans - against Clinton, for CENSURE.

But the fact of the matter is that we're talking about a highly partisan issue - it was a new strategy that was floated up by Newt Gingrich, called "slime boating". The sordid details were made very , very public. The loud proclamations of evangelical purity were held on both sides. It was a spectacle that alone contributed as greatly to the growth of Al Qaeda as Bush has tilled the field for them in Iraq and made them double in size.  Never forget the training video the AQ sent out with a trainee levelling an AK into the picture of Bush saying "I did not have affairs with that woman".

So in America, the GOP leadership played a fully  unified party against the pres. - it was news-media-entertainment. To this day, in the south, there are people who sanctimoniously proclaim how immoral Clinton was and/or is.. all the while the divorce rate certain red states goes off the charts.

This whole thing, is all about media buying, if you want to look at it more closely. A big scandal where two parties fight ea. other and don't play the center (like McCain does) means 200 billion dollars out of the pockets of the broadcast lobby. And the broadcast lobby hates McCain too.. they're  miffed about McCain-Feingold Finance reform.

I would advise you strongly to look into the issue of media Bias. It played a major role against Dean in 2004. If we are to allow this again, then lets all bear in mind that we're not saying "President Dean" right now because of it.

by turnerbroadcasting 2005-11-20 03:19AM | 0 recs
Re: I Disagree with McCain on a lot of things
whoa, whoa, whoa. sorry, sorry sorry. I meant to say in the above post "the al qaeda training video where a trainee is levelling an AK 47 into a picture of BILL CLINTON " not george bush. Al Qaeda loves George Bush - he was the one who let Bin Laden go in Tora Bora. OBL is like Robin Hood to these people.  My mistake.
by turnerbroadcasting 2005-11-20 03:22AM | 0 recs
Typical troll hyperbole
Nobody said anything about sending Libby to the gas chamber. Nobody said Clinton should receive the Medal of Freedom for committing perjury. Speaking of which, Clinton never awarded anyone the Medal of Freedom for being a political hack.

Your ethical compass is seriously out of whack dude.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-11-20 06:50PM | 0 recs
That Used To Be A Given
Now it's something you get brownie points for?

I don't think so.

by Paul Rosenberg 2005-11-19 10:21PM | 0 recs
Re: That Used To Be A Given
If you're the friend of a friend in the "new" democratic party I heard there's still some MICHAEL BROWNIE points out there. I think his name is SIMONSEN, who is head of the Dept. of Health and Human Services Flu Response team.

Strangely silent that the national director of pandemic response is only a lawyer, has no experience whatsoever... and was appointed because leavitt is his boss and he was his personal lawyer..

Where are the Ken Starrs of the Democratic party?

by turnerbroadcasting 2005-11-20 03:27AM | 0 recs
Re: That Used To Be A Given
Guys I saw Mike Leavitt on Meet the Press today. He's trying to hide the bodies... CYA on the simonsen appointment.

Simonsen is the one who couldn't get the budget right. Leavitt, apparently, is trying to get out ahead of Simonsen and pretend he's the one doing all the work.

Dude. That guy is a total Bush operative in the DHHS and he's standing there telling people that Bush has this wonderful vision and plan to save the nation and teaching us about the "lessons of katrina" when in fact there's a micheal-brown appointment right there in control of it all...

by turnerbroadcasting 2005-11-20 06:23AM | 0 recs
Don't forget
that while he supports the 90-9 amendment against torture he voted in favor of Abu Gonzales. How a man justifies voting against torture but for a torturer is beyond me.
by Andrew C White 2005-11-19 08:57PM | 0 recs
McCain
I have never had a real problem with McCain.  I think Matt is demonizing him a bit much.  He has done some good in government as well as some stuff that is not so good.

That being said, he lost any slim chance I might vote for him when he started sucking up to Bush and actively campaigning for him.  I still think he helped put Bush over.  It wasn't the fact he campaigned for Bush that bothered me... he is a Republican after all... it was the fact that he did it, AFTER Bush lied and trashed his support of veterans.  That was one of the absolute worst examples of politics and one of the reasons Rove and Bush will roast in hell someday.  

But for McCain to sell out and actively campaign for Bush made me lose all respect for the man.  He sold out for a shot in 2008; it was the action of a desperate man,

by yitbos96bb 2005-11-19 08:59PM | 0 recs
Re: McCain
I disagree - I think he is a political opportunist. He is part of the gang of 14 to "respect the senate" cause he was to be "Reasonable," which will make "electable" in 2008.

He is VERY carefully plotting a course to be a good moderate choice in 2008 - picking and choosing where to give in to the far right and follow Cheney/Rove/Bush orders, and where to seem bipartisan.

I suspect it is quite calculated.

If he was as reasonable as it seems, why woudl he vote to impeach? How could someone as ethical as he projects be involved in the Keating S&L mess?

by daninvirginia 2005-11-20 02:13AM | 0 recs
Re: McCain
Finally someone gets it right. Yes, this is the achilles heel of McCain. In 2000 he was campaigning on the issue of campaign finance reform and being flown all over america in corporate jets.

He thinks of the media as his constituency. He's not unlike Kerry in that he keeps his ear too closely to the wall.

The difference now will be, here it is, almost 2 years to the run-up. Will McCain get out there like a pit bull terrier and rip up the bad guys in the GOP or will he go for some nuance "straight talk" positioning in the party that will not do too much damage?

Remember this is a guy who withstood some pretty severe torture in Vietnam. He should be able to withstand the transformation the GOP needs, if he is to bring it on.

Anyone remember when Politics wasn't like friday night football? When things just got done, and we were fairly happy with our image in the world?
When laws that were passed didn't dis-assemble the work of the founding fathers - laws like the patriot act - that create secret police?

Well folks, its time to take the view from the center again if McCain can do that else - you, dan, have hit the nail on the head - else we've got just another media pretty boy. And the louder it gets, the more money the broadcast lobby makes.

Way to go Lieutenant Dan.

by turnerbroadcasting 2005-11-20 03:31AM | 0 recs
Re: McCain
Lieutenant? I can't work for that company.

Don't ask, don't tell.

by daninvirginia 2005-11-20 05:06AM | 0 recs
Re: McCain
My momma always used to say, stupid is as stupid does...
by turnerbroadcasting 2005-11-20 06:24AM | 0 recs
Re: McCain
Maybe so... It jsut gives me another reason to vote against him.
by yitbos96bb 2005-11-20 07:45PM | 0 recs
I agree
But also I must say at risk of backlash that it is unfortunate that the Dems have allowed him to appear liberal. I'm aware it's mostly the press doing it, but the Dems could have been calling for an end to torture instead of apologizing and crying. McCain being the one to call Bush out on torture makes McCain appear liberal and sane in spite of all his other positions. Kerry begging McCain to run with him last year makes McCain seem liberal and friendly, too. This could all help him become the next President. It's the Bloomberg strategy-- the "Oh, he's not REALLY a Republican" strategy.

After 8 years of Bush, people will want something other than a Republican, but they may settle on McCain. Posts like this are important because we need to KEEP REPEATING these facts you list until they equal and drown out the noise machine. I've argued for some time that the so-called "Civil War" in the republican party could very easily be a strategy to appear as both the left AND the right, thereby negating the need for Democrats at all. For this reason, we must all constantly repeat that McCain is anti-choice, McCain voted to convict Clinton, etc. etc.

by peterbernard 2005-11-19 09:06PM | 0 recs
Hey, My Comment Rated A Bullet Point, Too!
The one "Where McCain Really Stands--4th Most Conservative".
by Paul Rosenberg 2005-11-19 10:20PM | 0 recs
Great link Paul
I missed that the first time around. Very good source of information and it puts McCain in his rightful place as a reactionary in moderate clothing.
by Gary Boatwright 2005-11-20 06:12PM | 0 recs
Bravo, Matt
I used to write endless comments on McCain's real positions on the issues.  

the press is infatuated with a politician they have created in their minds.  Jphn McCain is as right wing as they come.

And when he sucked up to Bush in the 2004 campaign and went easy on the Abramoff scandal and done 20 other such things, at the very least we as Democrats should be more clear eyed about this man's true ideology and the lack of integrity streak that his 2004 cqmpqign behavior has shown him to have.

Keep doing it, Matt

by debcoop 2005-11-19 10:50PM | 0 recs
McCain 2008
Bush/Rove are positioning McCain to be the GOP nominee in '08.  While their differences and animosity is pretty big...I believe that Bush/Rove feel McCain is the only Republican who can win in '08, and better a Republican (even McCain) gets elected than a Democrat (especially Hillary).  Remember, Mark McKinnon, Bush's PR man out of Texas the last two campaigns and for Governor before that, has hooked up with McCain's "Straight Talk" group and has made it clear that should McCain run, he's going to be working on the Senator's behalf.  McKinnon could not make this move without Rove's say so...In addition, Bush barely makes a speech without mentioning McCain in a strong light...Bush is constantly trying to make sure the public believes his administration has the backing of the senior Senator from Arizona.  Rove will keep the Religious Right at bay in '08 and make sure they don't get in McCain's way, as he and the President know McCain is the GOP's only hope of keeping the WH.  Who else is there?  John McCain is the most popular politician in America across the board.  Who else does the GOP have?  Mitt Romney?  He'll be lucky to get reelected Gov of MA, plus he's a Mormon and that won't fly nationwide.  Rudy?  Yesterday's news, too much baggage relative to his personal life.  George Allen?  His dead dad is more popular in Virginia than he is.  Brownback?  Looks like a televangelist with a bad haircut.  Santorum?  Makes Reagan look like a Communist.  Frist?  Outside of Mercy Hospital in Nashville no one knows him.  Gingrich?  Too controversial.  Condi?  Countries not ready for that.  Hagel?  I'd go for him, but not well known enough and it's too late in the game for him to get his name out there, plus he's basically a younger McCain.  There aren't any Republican Governors of note, perhaps Owens of Colorado but too conservative for the current electorate and Jeb can't run this soon after his brother.  Rove/Bush realize all of this and that's why they got McKinnon on board with McCain and will be supporting him behind closed doors.
by realrepublican1854 2005-11-19 11:52PM | 0 recs
Re: McCain 2008
First of all, create paragraphs in your writing.  If you don't know where to, look at taking a composition class.  

Well yes, in 2004, Bush needed McCain to keep the skittish moderates from realizing what a terrible president he had been.  And to give Bush and Rove credit, it worked.  This is the real reason Rove would even consider McCain. It was the reason McCain sold out to someone who had the nerve to question his service and committment to veterans.  Bush is a piece of filth for that, and he will roast in hell for it one day.

The real question is can McCain beat Allen or Frist in the south.  They really don't like him down there.  Brownback has a better shot in the south than McCain.  Without the south, McCain is doomed.  

And McCain is beatable in an election.  Tough, but beatable.  HRC has polled closer, but frankly she is the wrong choice.  Warner though would have an excellent shot at taking down McCain.  And if McCain doesn't seperate himself, he will have Bush stink on him and that will kill him in the general.  I have to thank W though.  

W pretty much has assured a Bush is not electable as a president in this country anymore.  Jeb won't run because he knows he would have his ass handed to him.

by yitbos96bb 2005-11-20 12:41AM | 0 recs
Re: McCain 2008
WOW---sorry about the paragraph issue, Professor Tool...and yet you were still able to read it.  Incredible.  How very "little" of you to begin with personal shots for no other reason than to inflate your own meager ego.  With that said, I digress...

George Allen's dead dad is more popular in Virginia than he is. (Know who his dad was?)

Outside of Mercy Hospital in Nashville, nobody has a clue who Frist is.

Sam Brownback comes across as Elmer Gantry in a bad suit.

Rick Santorum makes William Joseph Simmons look like Rosa Parks.  (Know who Simmons was?---don't cheat by looking it up on the 'net).

Jeb isn't electable, you are correct there...too soon and I think two is about it.

Mitt Romney won't even get reelected to his current gig, besides being a carpetbagger (see HRC) and a Mormon, which is more of a turn off to the electorate than being a blind Jewish female midget lesbian.

Chuck Hagel is a mini-McCain, so why not just McCain then.

George Pataki is much too liberal for the GOP base, even more so than McCain (who is actually a conservative) and Rudy is yesterday's news.

So then, who but McCain?  Like I stated before...the WH is behind McCain for many of the reasons I laid out above...they know he's the only true shot of retaining the WH, regardless of the idealogy.  Better him, they figure, than a Democrat...especially one named Clinton.

by realrepublican1854 2005-11-20 03:01AM | 0 recs
Re: McCain 2008
McCain hates rove.

Consider the issues raised in this thread: gay marriage. A dead issue. 80% of the country voted it down.

Abortion. With no filibuster likely against Alito - the swing vote of day o' connor gone, and replaced with a hard vote against rvw. GOP majority. And with Harry Reid, the leader of the Democrats being just as "anti-choice" as McCain. another dead issue.

The party line vote on clinton is another laughable matter. Clinton was never removed from office. If the country didn't have the power to move on from the dog and pony show, well, guess what - maybe now it does. That was Newt Gringrich's illegitimate child not McCains.

But moreoever, the overall thread blinds you to a proper counter-strategy. Think for a second.

Bush/Rove have nothing to do with the 2008 campaign. Bush is a lame duck. Rove is crippled with scandal. McCain will have nothing to do with him. Especially since, when McCain was winning the GOP nomination in 2000 after a strong vote in New Hampshire, Rove slime-boated him in South Carolina. For those of you who were upset at the slime-boating of Kerry, I would advise you to look at the video in the SC debates where McCain turns to Bush and says - "You know better than to do to this. Shame on you." The campaign is shaping up all around McCain, to be sure.

So in the parenthesis of the main post we read: McCain is head of Indian affairs and might do something to axe the murderer- thats right - Murderer - Jack Abramoff.  

We, in the south (I speak for Georgia) are not going to mince words about this. Ralph Reed took big money from Indian casinos , BIG money - and then selectively turned the evangelical christian right against a few that were competing with the ones he was taking money from.

Reed is running for Lt. Governor. This is the most hard right, hard evangelical theo-con you have ever seen in your life.

The little sidebar that the post raises that McCain might just try to clean house has huge ramifications for a state that... lets see.. where is the quote from the Democratic party's nominated candidate in 2004... "doesn't matter".

Ga. is 18 electoral votes. I cannot impress upon you enough that McCain's actions against corruption in the case of Indian affairs will not only affect Daschle country - where Thune nuked the former sen. minority leader , but also the border of three key states totalling over 40 Electoral Votes- and in case you haven't noticed, Tom Delay as well. That deal is not closed yet.  

I pick fights I can win. I fought for Dean. As far as I am concerned Dean - a fiscal conservative - who fought the issue of Gay Marriage and tried with all his might to send it to the Vermont State Legislature and finally did, (and turned his state legislature into a Killing Field) and yes,  still today states he is uncomfortable about the issue of Gay marriage. Dean, who as a doctor knows abortion has deep consequences - who as a former governor befriended  George Bush, and who took money from Enron to do insurance deals in Vermont - was a man whose time has come.

If the purpose of the thread is to try to rip the carpet out from under McCain and what the poster thinks is a good solid entree into the GOP fighting corruption from within - the only image I have for you is that of Swift's Gulliver's travels - the cool commentary that the contest between the will of the people and the better good of the polity, between that of the partisan whims of the emperor - who wanted everyone dead because they opened their egg from the wrong side ---

Never forget that war started between two people who were closely related to ea. other. The emperor of Blethescu was the Cousin of The emperor of Lilliput.

How is it that the main thread, is so up in arms - about possible action against Abramoff? Does he know something we don't?

Rove will want to do something with the party. The ethics courses are probably part of a PR campaign. But it won't matter if you can keep pressing in on him and send him to jail.  The previous post railed on and on about how Rumsfeld was in charge of the DOD and could override the Anti-Torture amendment. It neglected the fact that the Anti-Torture amendment was a firm stance against torture, and against Rummy and Bush and Cheney. It neglected the fact that McCain is fighting the Administration and their Veto to get it passed and that it will send a clear message to the troops not to torture.

So if Rove has something up his sleeve.. what is it?

by turnerbroadcasting 2005-11-20 03:10AM | 0 recs
Re: McCain 2008
Sign up to be a warmongering Republican, since you seem to want warmongering Republicans to maintain control.
by Matt Stoller 2005-11-20 06:56AM | 0 recs
Re: McCain 2008
I think Turner is only pointing out that some warmongering Republicans are worse than others. But not to fear, in 5 years, the U.S. will not have the funds necessary to fight off The Conch Republic.

McCain is a cannibal, and that cake he and "W" were eating was seasoned with the flesh of Katrina victims.

by blues 2005-11-21 01:38AM | 0 recs
A few corrections
  1. Gay marriage is not a dead issue and nowhere near "80 percent of the country voted it down". Ballot initiatives in the redest of states only draw 70% support for banning gay marriage. Countrywide, opposition to gay marriage is in the low or mid 50s, and it's coming down all the time. Gay marriage will be a part of American society within a decade or so.

  2. Abortion is not a dead issue. 60% of the country favors reproductive freedom and legal, safe access to abortions - this includes a huge chunk of moderate repobulicans. Abortion is a wedge issue to split the Republican base.

  3. Thune did not "nuke" Daschle. It was extremely close.
by edgeplot 2005-11-20 08:14AM | 0 recs
Re: A few corrections
If the best you can do is 10 years, hey - I've got some land in florida you might want to look at. Its sort of in the path of hurricane Gamma but hey its got beautiful views of a rising global warm ocean.
by turnerbroadcasting 2005-11-20 09:03AM | 0 recs
Yo! turnerbroadcasting!
Would you mind terribly going back on whatever drugs you used to take and writing in poetic stanzas?

How can you question the seriousness of the charges against Abramoff? Do you also question the charges against DeLay? Has your cryptic feud with Rosenberg driven you over the edge?

What's up?

by Gary Boatwright 2005-11-20 05:56PM | 0 recs
Warner
I think Mark Warner has a shot of beating McCain in the general. He can win in the South, and that's what it'll take.

HRC stands no chance.

by LiberalFromPA 2005-11-20 02:48PM | 0 recs
positions don't matter
If McCain is the nom, we are sunk.  The press will kiss his ass as no ass has ever been kissed.  It will make their treatment of Bush look like their treatment of Gore.  They consider him "honest" and a "straight talker," and NOTHING  will change that theme.  It's the same as pretending that Hillary's positions matter.  She could have the cure for cancer, the solution for global poverty and warming, an economic magic touch, and would still get slaughtered.  Our only hope on McCain is that hard-core GOP types won't support him in the primaries.  He's a fraud, we all know; but the press, even the Frank Rich types, will fawn over him so badly it will make us puke.
by tuffie 2005-11-20 02:28AM | 0 recs
Re: positions don't matter
bullshit. the whole point of this thread is to probe mccains weak points and guess what, they've done a lousy job except for lt. dan.  but that doesn't mean  that there's a good candidate out there that couldn't mop the floor...

ooohhh what an image... "just because ma girlfriend is moppin' th' floor with your buddy ain't no excuse for you to join in"...

Natural born killers!!

alright. anyway. so here's the deal. on the dem side, you've got '06 first and that is where you need to get some serious mo' going. screw the 2008. Remember, Dean didn't even decide until the year before and he quickly became the front runner.

There's some big sky guy out there thats just going to walk in and take it all if McCain can't turn his own party around. So he's lobbying inside to get things going.

Way I see it: golden opportunity - don't deride the guy just watch him ferret out the cracks in the GOP and then viciously hack away at them with strong candidates. Delay. others. get them down and out for the count.

Then we have a good government working, the nut jobs are back where they belong. If everyone in the senate was like McCain, from the GOP and everyone from the Dems were like Kerry - seriously - would you be worrying about the country?

by turnerbroadcasting 2005-11-20 09:16AM | 0 recs
Straight Talk Express
Everyone here has done a fairly good job highlighting one reason why liberals like McCain: he is frequently at odds with the Bush administration.  This gives Dems the impression that he is potential ally, but many don't realize this is just an alliance of convenience.

Personally, I don't agree with McCain's politics and wouldn't vote for him, but I respect him for one simple reason: he has credibility.

The Bush administration has committed so many public gaffs over the years and has been so secretive in its operations that many Americans (including Republicans) have lost their trust in it.  Judging McCain on his behavior in the Senate seems to indicate that he would run a conservative White House, but at least it would a transparent White House.

Take Home Question: Is a return of institutional transparency really enough to depolarize American politics and subsequently mollify enough Democrats to give him the edge in 2008?  

by Robot Economist 2005-11-20 05:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Straight Talk Express
probably yes. the whole thing of 12,000 new document classifications , complete disrespect for FOIA, destruction of CIA operatives trying to stop al qaeda if they don't make good campaign peeps and the prospect of a new secret police  - gee whiz. I think transparency is a winner.

The pendulum is swinging towards the dems anyway. you can almost hear mccains heart breaking with all the sludge his party has dredged up. IF mccain can fight it down, and clear the way for a run,  who is going to get hurt?

This whole partisan thing reminds me of lilliputians fighting over which end of the egg to break open.

My take is that with Murtha up on the chopping block, that new piece of legislation specifically designed to screw up the party - I'd be looking into how can the party change that legislation so it works - so they can vote for a withdrawal -

instead of sitting here trying to hammer a vet. Thats karl rove stuff.

by turnerbroadcasting 2005-11-20 06:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Forked Tongue Caboose
Would a transparent fascist be acceptable? No.

Would an woman hating, gay bashing, warmonger, reactionary McCain presidency be acceptable if it was transparent? No.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-11-20 08:39PM | 0 recs
Where was McCain?
Just as a reminder as to what John McCain was up to while George W. Bush was ignoring the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, I thought I really ought to post this.

Sure, McCain may not support torture, but is he really that much better than Bush? Something to think about...

by Scott Shields 2005-11-20 06:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Where was McCain?
I think I just lost my cake I was holding down from yesterday..
by turnerbroadcasting 2005-11-20 09:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Where was McCain?
What was the picture of the cake for?  

Ok, so he is still sucking up to Bush.  You brink up a good point.  At least we know BUSH will fuck things up... he is a bungler.  McCain is a bit smarter... he might actually suceed with some of Bush's priorities.  Scary!!!

by yitbos96bb 2005-11-20 07:49PM | 0 recs
McCain voted for Thomas and Bork
His legislative record should be used to sink his reputation as a moderate.

Wham! and Bam!

I'm sure there are dozens more votes he has made that show his extremist positions.  I mean, shit, he voted for Bork?  

This thread is very revealing.  I had fallen into the "McCain's not bad for a republican" crowd too.  His disingenuity is staggering.

Though, I would still rather he had won the 2000 nomination and if we had to have a republican president in 2000, McCain would have been far better than Bush.

by scientician 2005-11-20 08:56AM | 0 recs
Re: McCain voted for Thomas and Bork
an OLD yeller dawg would've been better.
by turnerbroadcasting 2005-11-20 09:18AM | 0 recs
Worth repeating (posted on other thread):
anti-choice, a bigger neocon warmonger than Bush (he wants more troops), and viscerally anti-gay.  He has publically endorsed the proposed amendment to Arizona's state Constitution for the 2006 Arizona ballot that would ban not only gay marriage AND civil unions, but also any legal agreement entered into by gay people.  It's just as draconian of a measure as Ohio's was in 2004.
He's also mentally unfit to be president and does not have the temperment to be president.  Whilst working against the NAFTA Treaty in 1994 in Arizona, he told me to my face to, "watch my step."  This was after I had dared to argue with him about the effects of the treaty.  He was redfaced and flushed he was so angry.

John McCain is an asshole of the first magnitude.

by jgarcia 2005-11-20 09:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Worth repeating (posted on other thread):
"Watch your step?" McCain is shown once again to be a toxic scumbag.
by blues 2005-11-21 01:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Worth repeating (posted on other thread):
PLUS, HE DID RECEIVE SPECIAL TREATMENT WHEN THE VIETCONG FOUND OUT HIS DADDY WAS AN ADMIRAL!
by blues 2005-11-21 01:23AM | 0 recs
RNC Convention 2004
He instantly gave credibility to the disgusting Swift Boat attacks against Kerry by campaigning with Bush.  He stood there on the RNC platform along with all those bastards and questioned our patriotism.  

I'm never going to forget that.

by mattgabe 2005-11-20 11:31AM | 0 recs
Re: RNC Convention 2004
In my sleepwalk, I somehow missed out on all these details on McCain. And I usually am not caught napping like that. The big media syndicate has really cloaked this Klingon bigtime.

Obviously, John McCain is as toxic as they come.

by blues 2005-11-21 01:01AM | 0 recs
partisan and vicious as they come.
While I do think that he is partisan and vicious that really is not nearly as bad as other people like delay and such.

He would be as partisan and vicious as they come in some alternate dimension where Republicans don't manage to take those things so much further.

by sterra 2005-11-20 02:42PM | 0 recs
Re: partisan and vicious as they come.
Very good context. "Not as bad as DeLay" is objectively the nicest thing you can say about McCain.
by Gary Boatwright 2005-11-20 06:25PM | 0 recs
Bankruptcy
Don't forget he voted for the bankruptcy bill, and against every democrat amendment that would have made it a little less odious.
by Virginia Liberal 2005-11-20 03:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Bankruptcy -- More Toxic Scumbaggery! n/t
by blues 2005-11-21 01:04AM | 0 recs
Um is it just me or did
I spark a little bit of anger....
by Liberal 2005-11-20 03:21PM | 0 recs
Naah
We're just having a wide ranging robust discussion of the issues.
by Gary Boatwright 2005-11-20 06:28PM | 0 recs
McCain as bas as W, but he is not stupid
First of all he is not a hero; he is just a victim
and the part of criminal war.

Secondly he is a dishonest coward: W, Rove & Co.
put a lot of lies and shit on him during 2000
campaign and he is still supporting own enemies;
he is as shameless criminal as them.

Thirs he is truly a corporate whore and everybody
knows that; he is anti-people evil guy.

And finally he is very bad for USA: he is supporting
"inteligent Design" shit, he is against abortions,
he is pro-war and he has a lot of other sins.

by WeNeed3rdParty 2005-11-20 05:50PM | 0 recs
As McCain Goes, So Goes Republicanism, Etc.
If the media syndicate succeeds in making McCain out to be some sort of moderate hero, that coup will absolutely serve as a sturdy lifeline for the entire neocon Republican and neocon Democratic agenda. The guy may be a good soldier and all, but he just happens to be crawling up out of the Nazi trench. Knock out McCain, and all the fascist neocons will fall with him.
by blues 2005-11-21 03:08AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads