Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditDuring the 2000 Republican primary in South Carolina, GOP operatives spread the lie that Senator John McCain had fathered an illegitimate black child, when in fact his family had adopted a young girl from Bangladesh.
McCain denounced the smear as politics at its worst--and it was.
Now McCain is dipping into that very same race-tinged well by hiring operative Terry Nelson as his campaign manager for another presidential run, the man responsible for the racist television "bimbo" ad run against Harold Ford Jr. this year in Tennessee. Wal-Mart dropped Nelson as a consultant after the ad generated controversy and was eventually pulled from the air. McCain promoted him.
Nelson's palate is not simply limited to racist ads. He was an unindicted co-conspirator in the effort spearheaded by Tom DeLay to illegally funnel corporate cash to Texas legislature candidates in 2002. He oversaw the guy who was convicted of improperly jamming Democratic Party phones in New Hampshire in 2002.
It's more than a little ironic that McCain, Mr. Straight Talk Express, has chosen a campaign manager whose career represents a laundry list of scandal. It begs the question: Is McCain a hypocrite, a fraud, or both?
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
Is McCain a hypocrite, a fraud, or both?
I'd say hypocrisy and fraud are among the lesser of his morally degenerate characteristics when compared to his zeal for prolonging the genocide in Iraq. Sounds like a perfect Republican Party candidate for President.
How the hell is he going to make it to 2008, anyway? Are they going to embalm him? He already looks like a mummy.
Posted by fromredbird at 12/08/2006 @ 4:53pm
F_Red,
Yeah...sounds like he's just trying to get in touch with his base. As "base" as that idea apparently is.
Posted by leftofcenter at 12/08/2006 @ 4:59pm
.....and we see that Rio Loco can't get on a thread without injecting his own bit of racial hate-speak. Tell me Loco...do you guys have liners in those hoods for winter?
Posted by leftofcenter at 12/08/2006 @ 5:01pm
McCain would be the oldest President in our nation's history. Older Good thing it isn't going to happen. McCain was a popular man four years ago. However, caving on torture, spying, and his recent ass kissing tour with the evangelical right hasn't helped him with the majority of Americans. Furthermore, to think Mccain has a chance running on the platform of sending MORE troops to Iraq is laughable.
Posted by jpolston at 12/08/2006 @ 5:12pm
Considering how badly McCain was burned in 2000, it is far better for him to have the campaign dirt bags in his tent and not outside. While McCain may not get the nomination, he will certainly influence the nomination.
In the end, I think that will help the progressive cause and that is something would should all be happy about. (Apologies to Rio Bravo).
Posted by terryday at 12/08/2006 @ 5:21pm
Sounds more like sourgrapes that Hillary Rodham or Barrack Hussian did not land him for 2008!
Posted by RIO BRAVO 12/08/2006 @ 4:51pm
I see RIO BLOTTER ACID didn't follow my advice and work on his spelling. His ability to form a coherent comment isn't anything to admire, either, but that's a few benchmarks down the road.
Posted by fromredbird at 12/08/2006 @ 5:33pm
Why did McCain hire him?...well...
" the man responsible for the racist television "bimbo" ad run against Harold Ford Jr. "
it worked didn't it?
Posted by Mask at 12/08/2006 @ 5:48pm
Rumsfeld's farewell speech at the Pentagon to a Pentagon audience:
Mr. Rumsfeld said he would miss his jousting with reporters. "I think I will," he said. "The stakeouts, the briefings. I'm told it was something like 613 over six years, all across the globe. Now, you know, we've not always seen eye to eye, I haven't, with the press, but I still hold out hope that over time, they'll get it close to right."
Elect an orangutang President and you get muleheaded morons like this in the Pentagon.
Posted by fromredbird at 12/08/2006 @ 5:54pm
Sounds more like sourgrapes that Hillary Rodham or Barrack Hussian did not land him for 2008!
Posted by RIO BRAVO 12/08/2006 @ 4:51pm | ignore this person
hahahahahah, you are a joker.
Posted by johannesrolf at 12/08/2006 @ 5:57pm
Is McCain a hypocrite, a fraud, or both?
This question coming from you Ari?!?!?
Shame or embarassment is not an emotion you feel is it? That is never a good sign.
Posted by CPT at 12/08/2006 @ 6:20pm
Is McCain a hypocrite, a fraud, or both?
Talk about a stupid question. For Heaven's sake, he's a Republican!!
Posted by Tiresias at 12/08/2006 @ 6:20pm
FROMHAMASREDBIRD
Rumsflied is right on that comment.
The press seldom get it right.
Posted by CPT at 12/08/2006 @ 6:22pm
FROMHAMASREDBIRD
Rumsflied is right on that comment.
The press seldom get it right.
Posted by CPT 12/08/2006 @ 6:22pm
FROMHAMASREDBIRD is it? Gee, I feel so f'n stigmatised. I could hold my head up proudly. All I would have to do is identify with human rights abusing, ethnic-cleansing, genocidal israel. Then I could be a normal person like you, right? The one who argues for torture as an interrogation technique.
"Rumsflied" is right. You ultra-rightists can be funny without even trying. CPT, back on the ignore list with you. Credit it to an abundance of contentless posts.
Posted by fromredbird at 12/08/2006 @ 6:48pm
FROMHAMASREDBIRD
Thank God.
Posted by CPT at 12/08/2006 @ 6:50pm
RIO BRAVO, MASK, CPT, FROMREDBIRD, JOHANNESROLF,
People, for reasons that can't be repeatd here, have the ridiculous, silly, and misguided notion that somehow Sen. John McCain is some kind of saint. FAR FROM IT. HE IS THE MODEL OF WHAT THE PRESENT DAY REPUBLICAN PARTY IS ALL ABOUT............
KEATING FIVE ANYONE................?
Posted by POSEIDON at 12/08/2006 @ 6:54pm
Posted by POSEIDON 12/08/2006 @ 6:54pm
Indeed Posiden, and those roots go deep into other political families as well. Remember "buy high, sell low, Silverado"!
Posted by Stwriley at 12/08/2006 @ 8:03pm
CPT, back on the ignore list with you. Credit it to an abundance of contentless posts.
Posted by FROMREDBIRD 12/08/2006 @ 6:48pm
FROMHAMASREDBIRD
Thank God.
Posted by CPT 12/08/2006 @ 6:50pm
No divine intervention is required to get me to decide to clean out the deadwood.
Posted by fromredbird at 12/08/2006 @ 8:04pm
GOOD GOD! ALL of my favorite loony lefties on this thread......Not surprising, since the story is fodder for only the most numb of lefty numbskulls, those who can possibly interpret the bimbo ad as racist..No sense of humor, you libs. Even Harold Jr. stopped short of calling the ad racist, and to his credit laughed off the suggestion that there was anything wrong with a single man going to a party with playboy models. But then, Hal Jr. does have a sense of humor, and he'd probably say what we used to say back in Memphis, fuck 'em if they can't take a joke......By the way, his dad, Harold Ford Sr. was quite the race baiter in his day; Harold doesn't have to be, and it's one of the reasons for his popularity with whites in TN. His uncle John, however, is a reminder that there's a black sheep in every family.
PS Red, thanks for promoting me to your ignore list...I feel so special.......
Posted by davebarlett at 12/08/2006 @ 8:05pm
I liked McCain during the 2000 primaries. I thought he had a lot more to offer than any of the other Dem or Repub candidates. I held out hope for a long time... but once he folded on the torture interrogation thing I finally gave up on him. It's sad really. He survived years in a POW camp only to be broken by Bush.
Posted by TheArgus at 12/08/2006 @ 8:11pm
DaveB - No that ad wasn't racist at all. All it did was imply that Harold Ford Jr. likes to f*ck white women and white women may like to f*ck him. Why would that be a problem for a black man in Tennessee?
Posted by TheArgus at 12/08/2006 @ 8:32pm
John McCain: torture-compromiser, baby killer, father of black babies out of wedlock, equal opportunity racist employer, hothead, psycho, Catholic
John McCain is also a magician - he proposes to make 100,000 troops magically appear - who want to be sent to Iraq to DIE. He says we need to send them over RIGHT AWAY.
John McCain - a moderate only when standing next to Bush dupe Authoritarians like Rio Bravo, Cpt, Mussolini.
John McCain, Napalming innocent villagers, blowing up power plants, dropping bombs on people. How many cream puffs did you stuff your face with today John McCain?
Posted by LiberalPride at 12/08/2006 @ 8:41pm
who can possibly interpret the bimbo ad as racist
Posted by DAVEBARLETT 12/08/2006 @ 8:05pm | ignore this person
Who can possibly interpret what you just said as not racist
Posted by LiberalPride at 12/08/2006 @ 8:42pm
DaveB - No that ad wasn't racist at all. All it did was imply that Harold Ford Jr. likes to f*ck white women and white women may like to f*ck him. Why would that be a problem for a black man in Tennessee?
Posted by THEARGUS
Yeah, them 'ol rednecks in tennesseee....cain't wate ta take a brutha down......(sipping moonshine) call da Klan! Git da rope!
Posted by davebarlett at 12/08/2006 @ 8:48pm
Yeah, Memphis, home of Elvis, and Nathan Bedford Forrest (old Bedford to those in the know.....)
Posted by davebarlett at 12/08/2006 @ 8:51pm
Most MEN admire a guy like Harold Ford, who can be so popular with the ladies at the Playboy mansion.
Republican Racist so-called men get jealous though.
Posted by LiberalPride at 12/08/2006 @ 8:56pm
Most MEN admire a guy like Harold Ford, who can be so popular with the ladies at the Playboy mansion.
Republican Racist so-called men get jealous though.
Posted by LiberalPride at 12/08/2006 @ 8:56pm
Lib, is that the best you've got? Try again.....
Posted by davebarlett at 12/08/2006 @ 8:58pm
And don't repeat yourself
Posted by davebarlett at 12/08/2006 @ 8:59pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 12/08/2006 @ 9:08pm | ignore this person
that was then, and it was the opinion of one writer. I'm sure he feels different now. someone who is incapable of changing his mind, did not have much of a mind to start with. yes, I mean you.
Posted by johannesrolf at 12/08/2006 @ 9:15pm
libert: ouch.why do you say that?
Posted by johannesrolf at 12/08/2006 @ 9:26pm
lib, I cannot recall an instance where anything anyone here said moved you one iota away from your preconceived notions. perhaps I'm mistaken, but that was what I referred to above.
Posted by johannesrolf at 12/08/2006 @ 9:29pm
libert, check this post on the Baker report slaps Bush thread
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 12/08/2006 @ 9:05pm | ignore this person
I think it's one of the best things I have written.
Posted by johannesrolf at 12/08/2006 @ 9:35pm
Posted by POSEIDON 12/08/2006 @ 6:54pm
Uh, POSEI...most of the Keating Five...were Democrats.
Posted by Mask at 12/08/2006 @ 10:35pm
Rio, LV, etc. checking in with pearls of dittohead wisdom again. So you're OK with a guy that even Wal-Mart didn't want. How refreshing. And the bit about Obama's middle name. How mature.
Posted by proudlib at 12/08/2006 @ 10:48pm
Posted by THEARGUS 12/08/2006 @ 8:32pm
The Nation posted about this ad a little while ago and, if I remember correctly, most here did not think the ad was racist. In poor taste, but not racist.
Posted by usc1 at 12/08/2006 @ 11:07pm
of course it was racist and in poor taste. but hey they were and are desperate. they lost big time just the same.
Posted by johannesrolf at 12/08/2006 @ 11:12pm
It's fair to assume, though, that the more orthodox conservatives agree with McCain, the more he risks alienating moderates and forfeiting the independence that makes him unique and suggests he could become a great President. It's an uncomfortable predicament for a pragmatic problem solver with sky-high approval ratings and crossover appeal.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051212/berman
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 12/08/2006 @ 9:08pm
Berman was pointing out that there was a risk of losing the votes of those moderates in general who might be susceptible to his skin-deep "maverick" image, not that there was a risk of losing Berman's vote or that Berman thought he could become a great President.
You're laughable when you try to be erudite, incisive, and urbane. Just go back to the bizarre, armageddonite, bible-thumping, ultra right-wing nutcase that everyone's accustomed to. Tell us again why Americans should be proud to be torturers.
Anyone with eyes and ears knows that a lot of women liked McCain because they thought he was attractive. Now that he resembles a mummy more than anything else and he's running around with the James Dobson-style jackasses he sounds like a good recipe for unified Democratic rule. I hope a gay married couple moves in next door to you.
By the way, what do you think of your Republican Governor's commitment to make healthcare available to California's poorest residents? Javol! Har - - har - - har!
Posted by fromredbird at 12/09/2006 @ 12:37am
Because thats what John McCain has become in his relentless pursuit of the presidency. He has abandoned all ethics and principles.
Posted by kevin99999 at 12/09/2006 @ 01:16am
You liberals are hypocrites, too. You attack a guy for making fun of Obama's name, but then you attack McCain's looks. Furthermore, LIBERALPRIDE calls McCain a hothead. Somehow it's supposed to be bad thing for McCain to be a hothead, but it's great for Jim Webb to be a hothead. It's nice to see that the Left is so fair and balanced.
LIBERALPRIDE: Do you check any facts before you write whatever is on your mind? McCain is an Episcopalian, not a Catholic. Of course, I'm not quite sure why you'd bring it up. Are you a religious bigot?
Your line about McCain stuffing his face with creampuffs struck me as particularly insensitive to the weight-challenged. Where's all the love, sympathy, tolerance, and compassion you guys are so famous for? I have seen little more than hate for twelve straight years.
By the way, LIBERALPRIDE did you even read the first paragraph of the article that you're posting for? It clearly states that it was a lie that McCain fathered a black child illegitimately. But even if he did, what right would you have to attack him? Who cares what color the child is? Sex outside of marriage isn't a problem for liberals, at least it wasn't when Clinton did it. (Are Republicans held to a different standard on that as well?) Maybe you'd attack him for not convincing the woman to have an abortion, since abortions apparently are the greatest thing since sliced bread.
I'm no huge fan of McCain, but LIBERALPRIDE's attacks on McCain are despicable. He/She is spouting the garbage the Left hurled at the troops returning from Vietnam 35 years ago. Most of the troops who went to Vietnam were drafted, and many didn't want to go. Many of those that went were very young--barely adults. But they went out of a sense of duty to their country. They could have dodged the draft as Bill Clinton did, but they chose honor over ease and comfort. And they deserve our respect and gratitude. They sacrificed their lives, physical health, and mental health for their country. What have you done for your country?
If you oppose US foreign policy let the politicians know. They're the ones responsible for making the policy. Attacking the troops for doing their jobs is both foolish and reprehensible.
McCain is a war hero. If you wish to attack him for his position on Iraq, go ahead. But attacking a veteran for his military service, unless you have proof that he did something egregious, is contemptible. (By the way, was John Kerry a babykiller also?)
I have found it refreshing the progress that this country has made since Vietnam when liberals frequently attacked troops for their service. Now most liberals at least mouth the words that they support the troops. Liberals will even try to claim the moral high ground by saying that they want to do more for the troops. (When, truth be told, liberals have a strong tendency to cut the military budget. One can only imagine how much less equipment and technology the troops would have if liberals had had more influence for the past dozen years.)
But I had a hunch that there are still plenty of liberals who don't support the troops--that still view the troops as evil oppressors, thugs, babykillers. (Funny that pro-abortion liberals hate babykillers, isn't it?) LIBERALPRIDE has just provided me with some proof of my hypothesis.
POSEIDON: You attack McCain for the Keating scandal, but what about Murtha and Abscam, Mollohan's cronyism, Jefferson's bribery, Menendez's conflict-of interest, Hastings' impeachment by Democrats, Gore's illegal fundraising, and Reid's creative use of campaign funds and report omissions? Looks like there's plenty of corruption in the Democrat Party. Corruption is a bipartisan fact. However, I expect that the mainstream media will now ratchet down the talk about a "culture of corruption" now that the "incorruptible" have taken over Congress.
Posted by rlmcca at 12/09/2006 @ 07:13am
FBI directly involved in FIRST Twin Towers attack:
Allegations of FBI foreknowledge In the course of the trial it was revealed that the FBI had an informant, a former Egyptian army officer named Emad A. Salem. Salem claims to have informed the FBI of the plot to bomb the towers as early as February 6, 1992. Salem's role as informant allowed the FBI to quickly pinpoint the conspirators out of the hundreds of possible suspects.
Salem, initially believing that this was to be a sting operation, claimed that the FBI's original plan was for Salem to supply the conspirators with a harmless powder instead of actual explosive to build their bomb, but that the FBI chose to use him for other purposes instead. [4] He secretly recorded hundreds of hours of telephone conversations with his FBI handlers
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/december2006/081206_b_Foreknowledge .htm
And did everything in their power (at the highest levels) to bury all of the leads they were getting prior to the 9/11 attack.
http://www.infowars.com/resources.html#BUSH http://www.infowars.net/articles/december2006/071206Haas.htm http://www.infowars.com/resources.html http://whatreallyhappened.com/fiveisraelis.html
And they know damn well who implemented the ANTHRAX ATTACKS:
http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2006/1/23/20949/8628 http://www.infowars.com/resources.html#anthraxgovt
All of which was specifically designed to condition the American people to accept the invasion of Afghanistan to ensure the construction of the coveted oil pipeline to free the oil trapped in the Caspian Sea - and further - to ensure a bumper crop of opium for "Poppy" Bush's CIA to run its drugs - the essential funding mechanism for the Shadow Government's agenda (they are your enemy).
http://www.omgili.com/preview/aHR0cDovL3d3dy5saW9uY2l0eS5uZXQvYnVkZGhpc2 0vaW5kZXgucGhwP3Nob3d0b3BpYz0zODE2Ng==
Dick Cheney got himself appointed to the Kazakhstan Oil. When the 20 Year War Plan was [first] conceived - the CIA renditions started.
http://www.rinf.com/columnists/news/raytheon-connection-to-9-11 http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/02_11_02_lucy.html http://worldreports.org/news/36_high-level_criminals
READ / LEARN / TEACH
Posted by plunger at 12/09/2006 @ 08:31am
Posted by RLMCCA 12/09/2006 @ 07:13am
A new voice from the ditto-heads?
You forget about (at least) one thing, the repubes are more ethical, moral and truthful than the dems. "We will restore credibility to the White House".
hahaha. good stuff. Better than Leno.
" But attacking a veteran for his military service, unless you have proof that he did something egregious, is contemptible"
You are correct. Kerry, Clelend, Tillman, George Mcgovern. McCain in SC in 2000. I wish your Masters would heed your words.
"They could have dodged the draft as Bill Clinton did," Right. Unlike chimpy and Cheney, who proudly served when called, or finished out their service contract.
time to get a grip on reality RLMCCA.
Posted by crabwalk at 12/09/2006 @ 09:11am
Sorry I missed the fun over here last night. Esp with Rev Luvvy around. Hope you come back to check up, I want to make sure you did not miss the story on your Chinese friends.
The public security bureau has put Three Grades of Servants on its list of more than a dozen illegal cults. Censors have forbidden the mainland media from reporting on the group's activities. Supporters claimed they were victims of religious persecution.
"This is absurd. My father only found out about the murders after the hearings opened," said his daughter, Xu Baiyin. "He signed a confession because they connected electric cables to his fingers, toes and penis. They made him sign it even though he couldn't read the document because they wouldn't let him wear glasses in prison. He retracted the confession, but the judge wouldn't let him mention the torture."
According to the China Aid Association, a US-based advocate for underground churches, other defendants were tortured by their interrogators and one of them died in custody in 2004.
Back to Mal-Wart for some more goods, Rev. Make sure they say "Made in china, were we kill christians at will".
Posted by crabwalk at 12/09/2006 @ 09:16am
Posted by DAVEBARLETT 12/08/2006 @ 8:48pm
Ever lived there? Know ANY history? Ever heard of the War of Northern Aggression? Many still fight it, or think it was not lost.
Posted by TIRESIAS 12/08/2006 @ 6:20pm
'nuff said.
Posted by crabwalk at 12/09/2006 @ 09:22am
Posted by STWRILEY 12/08/2006 @ 8:03pm
At least McCain never accepted whores from the Communist guvt of China. Those Bushes, so morally centered. They never lie, cheat, break the law or commit adultery. Nope, paragons of virtue they are.
Posted by crabwalk at 12/09/2006 @ 09:25am
CRABWALK: How about we raise the bar slightly above the second grade level in our attacks? Of course, I'm referring to your use of the term "repubes." Would you like to be referred to a Demonrat?
Although you don't exhibit much maturity, I'm going to venture that you're older than I. Kerry and Cleland weren't attacked for serving in the military in Vietnam. The Right questioned whether Kerry deserved the medals he received. The Right attacked Cleland for putting politics above national security. That's far different from some Leftist claims that all who went to Vietnam are babykillers.
I'm unaware of any attacks on Tillman. From all that I've heard he's a hero. (How else could one describe a guy who willingly gave up millions of dollars to fight fascists and terrorists half-way around the world? Maybe your buddy LIBERALPRIDE would call him a babykiller too, but most Americans wouldn't.)
I'm unaware of any Republican attacks on McCain for his service in Vietnam. McGovern was before my time.
And by the way, I don't have masters. I refuse to live on a plantation like many liberals have contented themselves with. I read a fair amount, and I come to my own conclusions. Typically, I side with conservatives, but I reserve the right to disagree with them if conditions warrant. I'm always willing to listen to well-supported, well-reasoned arguments.
Service in the Texas Air National Guard was more than Clinton did. If Bush or Cheney had done what Clinton did, I can assure you the conservatives would never have tolerated their nomination.
I would argue that we conservatives have a much firmer grasp on reality than you liberals. We understand that a strong military is the only way to ensure our liberty.
We understand that when taxes get to be too high they stifle the economy. We understand that excessive regulations have a negative impact on the economy. We also understand that harming the economy harms people--single parents, the elderly, those looking for work, those that hate their job, those that are struggling to pay their bills.
We understand that the government isn't very good at most things that it does, so generally the fewer tasks that we assign it the better. (Of course, we have to have some level of government, but smaller is usually better.) We understand that the government is very wasteful so we'd prefer that people kept as much of their hard-earned money as possible.
We understand that criminals should be punished, not coddled. We understand that you often get what you expect or tolerate.
We recognize that the current educational system has failed millions of students. We believe in educational standards and choice. We understand that parents are generally the best protectors of their children's interests.
We understand that property rights should be respected--governments shouldn't be able to seize land just because some business wants it.
So, CRABWALK, let me recommend that you get a grip.
Posted by rlmcca at 12/09/2006 @ 10:35am
If Bush or Cheney had done what Clinton did,
Cheney did what Clinton did, he avoided the draft, as did I.
Posted by johannesrolf at 12/09/2006 @ 10:50am
We understand that the government isn't very good at most things that it does, so generally the fewer tasks that we assign it the better.
except of course the military, that's where obscenely bloated and disfunctional is better, right?
Posted by johannesrolf at 12/09/2006 @ 10:53am
JOHANNESROLF: Which is it: is the military obscenely bloated or is it ill-equipped? We just finished a campaign during which the Democrats tried to make the case that the best-equipped, strongest force in human history didn't have enough armor.
The military, like government and taxes, is a necessary evil. And, yes, like almost all governmental organizations it's wasteful. I'm certainly open to finding ways to get more bang for our buck. But if I had to choose between a military that is overfunded and one that is underfunded, I'll take the former every time. A country with an overfunded military is much less likely to be attacked, which goes a long way toward explaining why we never went to war with the Soviets.
Of course, a dysfunctional military is less able to fulfill its duty to defend us. And if we have any sense we'll do what we can to make the military function properly. It's not a liberal or conservative issue, it's a matter of national survival. The terrorists who wish to kill us won't spare people simply because they're conservative or liberal.
To my knowledge, Cheney followed the law. Clinton did not. He said he would do one thing, and he did another. I have no problem with those that avoided the draft legally by going to college, but I have a lot of respect for those who went. Serving in the military is a bit like paying taxes. If you can find a legal way to reduce your taxes, you're under no obligation to figure your taxes in a way that benefits Uncle Sam. Similarly, you don't have to go to war if you're not drafted.
Posted by rlmcca at 12/09/2006 @ 11:45am
JOHANNESROLF: Which is it: is the military obscenely bloated or is it ill-equipped? We just finished a campaign during which the Democrats tried to make the case that the best-equipped, strongest force in human history didn't have enough armor.
don't be daft, RLM. these two facts are related. the military spends its money on expensive new toys, which are not needed, like fighter planes, ships etc, when we are already peerless in that department, and the soviet threat has receded. then they try to nickel and dime the troops, while handing out fat support contracts to Brown and Root. all our military might was unable to protect us against a bunch of fanatics with boxcutters.
Posted by johannesrolf at 12/09/2006 @ 12:14pm
Posted by RLMCCA 12/09/2006 @ 10:35am
Posted by RLMCCA 12/09/2006 @ 11:45am
I couldn't sum up my own position better than these two posts..
Thank you for saying is afew short paragraphs what I have been wasting my time trying to say here for 6 months....the problem is most here reject you as they do me out of hand and don't really see that what you posted defines for me a true conservative....and Bush is no conservative....but they think he is a far right nut...so your words are lost here..
but not on me...thanks for well wriiten points.
Posted by john maasch at 12/09/2006 @ 12:21pm
Clinton Questioned about How He Avoided Military Service
By Paul West The Baltimore Sun NASHUA, N.H.
Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton's presidential campaign was sidetracked again Thursday, this time over new questions about how he avoided military service at the height of the Vietnam War.
For Clinton, the issue is not new -- it first surfaced when he entered politics in the 1970s.
Besieged by reporters at campaign stops in Manchester and Nashua, the governor gave a calm but forceful defense of his behavior, 23 years ago. Clinton said that, after first attempting to avoid conscription, he decide to expose himself to the draft. He was never called because he drew a high number in the 1969 draft lottery.
But proposed reforms in the draft system, widely publicized at the time Clinton was changing his draft status, raise questions about whether he thought he was putting himself at risk.
Retired Col. Eugene Holmes, then the commander of the Army ROTC program at the University of Arkansas, was quoted in Thursday's Wall Street Journal as saying that Clinton, then a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford University in England, "was able to manipulate things" so that he was not conscripted in the fall of 1969. He told the paper that Clinton had misled him into thinking he would be returning to Arkansas within a couple of months, rather than spending the entire academic year in England.
Clinton, disagreeing, says he does not know why Holmes, now 75, would make such a statement. He says the ROTC commander had encouraged him to go back for his second year at Oxford, since he could not attend ROTC training camp until the following summer.
Both men agree that during the summer of 1969, Clinton told Holmes he intended to enroll at the Arkansas law school and wanted to join the ROTC program there. Instead, Clinton went to Yale Law School and never joined ROTC.
As a result of his oral commitment to join the ROTC, Clinton got a draft deferment for September and October 1969, the two months he had been told that he was likely to be called up.
In September or October 1969, he says he changed his mind and decided not to join the ROTC unit, and was classified as draft-eligible on Oct. 30, 1969.
At the time Clinton backed out of his commitment to join the ROTC, which would have required him to go on active duty after finishing law school, the Selective Service system was in turmoil, as President Nixon struggled to ease anti-war sentiment on college campuses.
On Sept. 19, 1969, following meetings with top House and Senate leaders, Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird announced that Nixon intended to sign an executive order exempting those ages 20 through 26, which included Clinton, from the proposed draft lottery.
Another change affecting Clinton, announced Oct. 1, allowed graduate students already in school to finish their academic year, even if they were called for induction.
Clinton says he decided to give up his ROTC deferment that month because he "felt badly" about having a deferment that would last four years, since several former classmates had already lost their lives in the war.
By the time the lottery took place, on Dec. 1, 1969, the rules had changed again and Clinton was in danger of being drafted. But he drew number 311; no one with a number higher than 195 was ever called.
Clinton, who strongly opposed the war, said Thursday, "I was not seeking to avoid military service."
Posted by johannesrolf at 12/09/2006 @ 12:22pm
JR,
" all our military might was unable to protect us against a bunch of fanatics with boxcutters. "
All our military might wasn't looking for nuts with box cutters...now that we are looking for nuts with box cutters we are hampered by our own foolish PC crap(profiling) and laws that need to be re examined.
I am convinced we could not fight WW2 today with the current Dems in the House and Senate, MSM, judges,and news reporters who are no longer "American" but neutral as an American is assinate on their film... muchless win.
Posted by john maasch at 12/09/2006 @ 12:30pm
Maasch, you are long on opinion but short on facts. it was the repubs who dragged their feet on entry into WW2. Especially after Pearl Harbor, when many nixed entry into Europe's war, as after all we now had our own pacific war. Hitler did FDR a great favor by declaring war on the US.
the last part is just an lousy slur
Posted by johannesrolf at 12/09/2006 @ 12:37pm
JOHN MAASCH: Thanks for your kind words. Most of these people are knee-jerk liberals; just like knee-jerk conservatives, they don't think.
I would say that Bush is conservative, but he has allowed too much spending. I haven't agreed with everything that he's done, but spending is one of my chief concerns. Although I might hope for more, I'll take 3/4 of loaf over no loaf every time.
Where are you from? I'm writing from the great Commonwealth of Virginia.
Posted by rlmcca at 12/09/2006 @ 12:38pm
I don't believe the dems today are even close to the dems of those days...I think the repubs of today are closer...
Posted by john maasch at 12/09/2006 @ 12:39pm
I am cuurently living on the plains of Nebraska..although I herald from Wisconsin and Minnesota, where my parents fought the uphill struggles of conservative republicans in a liberal democrat swamp...but those swamps have been slowly drained and slowly getting better.
You will find I am written off here by almost everybody as a right wing nut and some how think I love war, killing, corporations over people and hate the enviroment!!..so you may also find yourself there...
Posted by john maasch at 12/09/2006 @ 12:44pm
I don't see the 3/4 loaf.
For me Bush is not a conservative and as a result of the spending he set the tone in Washington FOR that spending. I also believe Bush is dyslexic and as a result is incapable of speaking well before an audience with or without a written speech in front of him, and ad libing is not his style..the public does not see him as bright or sharp.... neither is he slick, which is all they had for 8 years and the media celebrated slickness and equated it with intelligence. We are all short changed in the situation. Bush did not and does not inspire the public and this has cost him and us dearly. He never confronted his enemies in the press and they are legion...Reagan was able to go over the media and they couldn't lay a glove on him as he was great in front of the TV,..Bush tried this and failed.
He is percieved as not very bright..one can see it in the posts here,some of the most idiotic electrons put on a screen show this tedency.
Posted by john maasch at 12/09/2006 @ 12:52pm
Thank you for saying is afew short paragraphs what I have been wasting my time trying to say here for 6 months....the problem is most here reject you as they do me out of hand and don't really see that what you posted defines for me a true conservative....and Bush is no conservative....but they think he is a far right nut...so your words are lost here..
but not on me...thanks for well wriiten points.
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 12/09/2006 @ 12:21am
If Bush isn't a conservative or a far-right nut, what is he- a moderate or a liberal? What a dunderhead.
Your mutual adoration pact with RLMCCA is touching. He said so many obviously dumb things that it isn't even necessary to respond. It's self-evident.
Posted by fromredbird at 12/09/2006 @ 12:58pm
. . . the current Dems in the House and Senate, MSM, judges,and news reporters who are no longer "American" but neutral as an American is assinate on their film... muchless win.
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 12/09/2006 @ 12:30am
See what I mean? No further comment.
Posted by fromredbird at 12/09/2006 @ 1:01pm
I am cuurently living on the plains of Nebraska..although I herald from Wisconsin and Minnesota . .
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 12/09/2006 @ 12:44am
What do you do- fly there on weekends to herald? Must get a huge audience there.
Posted by fromredbird at 12/09/2006 @ 1:04pm
Maasch, Reagan was a trained actor. the best can be said about Bush is that he is maladroit.
Posted by johannesrolf at 12/09/2006 @ 1:07pm
JOHANNESROLF: If you want to talk about WWII, why not go back to the start--WWI? WWI has to have been one of the dumbest wars in human history, and Democrat Woodrow Wilson drug is into war without just cause. Had we not involved ourselves in WWI there's a good chance WWII might never have happened. And Republicans weren't the only ones leery of foreign entanglements.
You might think that the last part of JOHN MAASCH's post is just a slur, but you might want to carefully consider what he says first. With the way that the Left wrings its hands every time a Republican leads us into a conflict, I'm beginning to wonder if our country has the stomach to win wars. We lost 100,000 troops in WWI, 400,000 in WWII, 30,000 in Korea, and 50,000 in Vietnam. I wonder what America would have thought if it had seen thousands dying on D-Day. (We know what Americans thought of the Tet Offensive--a great PR coup for the communists.) I suspect that they would have toughed it out anyway, but I think that the WWII generation was made of tougher stuff than later generations.
I suspect that the Democrats would support a war led by a Democrat--for a time anyway. I don't recall vocal liberal complaints about Clinton's foreign adventures. But considering the posturing that we've seen over Iraq, I see little reason for hope that Democrats would support a difficult war led by a Republican.
The mainstream media is desperate for ratings and readership. Telling the people that the war is going well wouldn't help sell ads; crises generate much more interest. I'm shocked and appalled that the media ran stories explaining how we located bin Laden, searched international financial transactions, and scanned phone bills. These actions strike me as the actions of the fifth column. No one in their right mind reveals their plans for defeating the enemy.
And there are plenty of judges who don't seem to grasp the gravity of our situation. Maybe they think they're doing the right thing or maybe they want to be cannonized by the Left, but their actions could hamper our efforts to defend ourselves. I just don't understand why we should extend our constitutional rights to non-citizen terrorists. The terrorists despise most everything about our culture, why should we grant them full constitutional rights when they're working so hard to deprive us of ours--including life?
By the way, JOHANNESROLF, thanks for posting the article about Clinton. It was very informative. The one thing that it did leave out was Clinton's statement that he "loathed the military."
Posted by rlmcca at 12/09/2006 @ 1:17pm
RLM,
I suggest you take cover ...as you are about to take some incoming fire...
BTW Johannes is one of those who does post intelligenly and he posts intelligence...
and as he is a foreign born American he can spell better than I, but then again, I am a victim of the public chool system...:)
and you too, may tire of my miss spellings and grammtical gaffs..not to mention syntax.
Posted by john maasch at 12/09/2006 @ 1:26pm
RL, Had we not involved ourselves in WWI there's a good chance WWII might never have happened.
I have seen no evidence for this. what is true is that WW2 was the direct result of WW1, so much so that many historians refer to it as the same war. the war settlement was so devastating for germany, that it could be seen as paving the way for Hitler. Wilson was hosed at Versailles, his idealism being no match for england and france, who screwed it up big time. we are still fighting over this.
With the way that the Left wrings its hands every time a Republican leads us into a conflict, I'm beginning to wonder if our country has the stomach to win wars.
first it no longer just the left. another point is that there are wars of defense and there are unjustified wars. Iraq and Vietnam are the latter. the US was attacked in Korea, and had little choice, except to pull out of Korea altogether. the conduct of that war was certainly questionable, we wound up at the end with what we had in the beginning. that is true in Vietnam, we wound up settling for what had been offered years before. it is the fear of the stigma of losing that drove Vietnam as it drives Bush's action in Iraq.
most liberals thought gulf war ! was justified, as was Kosovo. in both instance we had the support not only of all our allies but also by nations who were not allies, Syria for example. Bush has turned most allies against us. Afghanistan is another war that had great support from our own people and our allies. that cannot be said about Iraq. so it's not so much that the country has lost its courage for war, and the sacrifices that involves. the public just won't stand for wars of aggression. the Iraq war was popular at first. only after the lies hat got us in there were more widely known, and the military disaster of the occupation became obvious did the nation, not just liberals, turn against it.
The mainstream media is desperate for ratings and readership. Telling the people that the war is going well wouldn't help sell ads; crises generate much more interest.
this very selective history. the media were behind the war for the first years or two. one more point, we are not defending ourselves in Iraq, as we were not attacked by that nation, could not have been threatened by that nation. them's facts, not opinion.
Posted by johannesrolf at 12/09/2006 @ 1:38pm
Would you like to be referred to a Demonrat?"-Posted by RLMCCA 12/09/2006 @ 10:35am it would have zero effect one me, I am not a democrat. I have been called a traitor, Anti-American, a coward, wrong about the reasons for war, a liberal scum, a communist, an elitist, a welfare queen (by the same people that call me elitist), an appeaser and worse. I have been called John McCain on this site. the truth is i am a patriotic capitalist business owner that thinks we should save our money, treat soldiers with respect by not sending them into a worthy cause with no plan, bad equipment, wrong training and jingoistic slogans.
"Although you don't exhibit much maturity, I'm going to venture that you're older than I."RLCMA
the inner child comes out when I read childish comments. Sorry
. Kerry and Cleland weren't attacked for serving in the military in Vietnam. The Right questioned whether Kerry deserved the medals he received.-SAME
They were attacked for the way they served in the military. Both are alleged cowards and cheats. Cleland blew his arms off reaching for a beer, according to one Neo-con bimbo. And he and Usama are one and the same.
Maybe 2 people here have ever called military baby-killers. That term is reserved for pro-choice folk. The only people picketing military funerals in the last 30 years are Rev Phelps crew, conservative evangelicals.
"I refuse to live on a plantation like many liberals have contented themselves with"- sure RL, Sure. Whatever you say.
"Now most liberals at least mouth the words that they support the troops. Liberals will even try to claim the moral high ground by saying that they want to do more for the troops. (When, truth be told, liberals have a strong tendency to cut the military budget. One can only imagine how much less equipment and technology the troops would have if liberals had had more influence for the past dozen years.)"
this is a commonly held belief, held by those that hear what they want to hear, not what is being said.
Posted by crabwalk at 12/09/2006 @ 1:40pm
REDBIRD: If I'm so dumb, why not set me straight on a few things?
JOHANNESROLF: And Gore and Kerry weren't awkward?
JOHN MAASCH: Democrats love to caricature Republicans as simple and racist, but that's just politics.
Bush is considerably more conservative than Ford or his father. On the political spectrum I'd say that Bush is just short of mainstream right; Reagan was probably a little further right.
You're correct; Bush doesn't speak well, but there's much more to governing than speaking. Reagan and Clinton are the only two recent presidents that spoke well. If we had a parliament like Britain, I'm sure our leaders would be more rhetorically gifted. (But I wouldn't trade our system for theirs.)
Posted by rlmcca at 12/09/2006 @ 1:41pm
thanks Maasch. I just take the time to look over my post and try to correct as many mistakes as I can find, including looking up how words are spelled. hint: I use google, when something is misspelled they answer:"don't you mean...?' again your spelling gaffes don't bother me much.
Posted by johannesrolf at 12/09/2006 @ 1:41pm
JOHANNESROLF: And Gore and Kerry weren't awkward?
it's a matter of degree. Bush is the champ.
Posted by johannesrolf at 12/09/2006 @ 1:42pm
RL, Charlottesville is a beautiful city. Good people, the ones that have recovered from the WoNA in 1865. Not one mosquito bite while i lived there one summer. A miracle for those of us from Michigan. I still don't understand it.
Posted by crabwalk at 12/09/2006 @ 1:45pm
Bush doesn't speak well, -RL
Not to pick on you, i really do want to get along, but this gets you the "understatement of the day " award.
" but there's much more to governing than speaking." -Public speaking is a requisite skill for a president, who after all, is the head PR man for all of us. When he comes off as a bumbling idiot that cannot grasp his native tongue, he makes us all look bad. And I need no help on that score.
"Uhh, occasionally. One of the things I've used on the Google is, uhh, to pull up maps." The Chimpster
"This morning my administration released the budget numbers for fiscal 2006. These budget numbers are not just estimates, these are the actual results for the fiscal year that ended February the 30th."- The The Googler.
Posted by crabwalk at 12/09/2006 @ 1:53pm
Crab, check my link on the Baker thread.
Posted by johannesrolf at 12/09/2006 @ 1:54pm
What you will also find here RL, is a large group that still thinks "The Left" is controlled by Maos l'il Red Book. these same folk will tell us how great China is to do business with, and how vietnam deserves favored nation trading status, while, as you saw earlier, decrying communist doctrine. They want guvt out of their business and in your bedroom.
you will also find some lefty wingnuts, along with a large smattering of knowledgeable people that disagree on politics. As well as those of us who come here for the laughs, which you have supplied well today.
Enjoy your new addiction.
Posted by crabwalk at 12/09/2006 @ 1:58pm
"I speak better English than this villain Bush."- Baghdad Bob.
Posted by crabwalk at 12/09/2006 @ 1:59pm
"I speak better English than this villain Bush."- Baghdad Bob.
Posted by crabwalk at 12/09/2006 @ 1:59pm
CRABWALK: If that was an apology, I accept.
Rev. Phelps represents conservative evangelicals as much as Louis Farrakhan represents true Islam. Phelps leads a family cult--nothing more. Their actions are detestable.
I doubt that many Georgians cast their votes in 2002 based upon what Cleland did or didn't do about 40 years ago. I think they were more focused on his previous term and his political philosophy.
We'll soon see how much the Democrat Party has changed from the last time that it held full power in Congress. But during the 1980s, liberals resented the money that Reagan wanted to spend to fight the Cold War.
So you're a dirty capitalist pig? That's amusing given this site's hostility to capitalism.
By the way, as a businessperson, are you at all concerned about the 41% hike in the minimum wage? Or are you in a business where the minimum wage has little effect upon you? I just saw a list of two dozen business organizations opposing such a dramatic hike.
One last thing: Did you refer to Iraq as a worthy cause?
Posted by rlmcca at 12/09/2006 @ 2:05pm
Too many threads, too short lunch. JR, darn you and your videos, you know I live in the sticks with a dial -up. Now i will have to sit and wait it out, cuz I know you only reference funny stuff. You weird 'ol man, you
Posted by crabwalk at 12/09/2006 @ 2:06pm
we should extend our constitutional rights to non-citizen terrorists. "RL
We are not, we should be extending basic human rights to innocent people caught up in the hunt for terrorists.
Yes, the ideal, or utopian theory, of toppling Saddam and placing a thriving democracy can be viewed as worthy. But the reality is far, far different. And it has been led by a group of "people" that don't believe in guvt, with no idea of the existing conflicts of the region. It is an utter failure.
" MR. Capitalist pig artist" to you, sir. No employees at the moment , if I can't pay em well, give em health insurance and good paid time off, I won't hire. plus, I am not a Master yet, so taking an apprentice would be gauche.
Posted by crabwalk at 12/09/2006 @ 2:14pm
"If that was an apology, I accept."-RL
No, it was not. I will print the words when i think i have crossed a line. Not even close yet. Thick skin is an necessity here. Grow it or flee now.
Posted by crabwalk at 12/09/2006 @ 2:18pm
sorry Crab, I did not remember.
Posted by johannesrolf at 12/09/2006 @ 2:19pm
Ever lived there? Know ANY history? Ever heard of the War of Northern Aggression? Many still fight it, or think it was not lost.
Posted by TIRESIAS Tired, yes, lived in memphis from 1976 to 1989, still a frequent visitor, all my family still lives there...And I never heard of the war of Northern Agression in Memphis, we just called it the war between the states......Incidently, Old Bedford was family...by marriage......
Posted by davebarlett at 12/09/2006 @ 2:19pm
I need to find a state that would honor this kind of agreement, say the Mariana islands. I hear the neo's like their labor standards:
In 1715 Northumberland County, Virginia, Ariskam Crowder was "hereby bound an apprentice to serve Mary Knight in all lawfull Services & imploym until he shall attain the age of One and twenty years, he being Seven year old."
Posted by crabwalk at 12/09/2006 @ 2:23pm
I need to find a state that would honor this kind of agreement, say the Mariana islands. I hear the neo's like their labor standards:
In 1715 Northumberland County, Virginia, Ariskam Crowder was "hereby bound an apprentice to serve Mary Knight in all lawfull Services & imploym until he shall attain the age of One and twenty years, he being Seven year old."
What I can't find right now is the one that says .."...if said apprentice shall live to the age of 21..."
Posted by crabwalk at 12/09/2006 @ 2:24pm
Sorry for the 2 double posts, I swear i only hit the button once.
It's the LIB MEDIA!!!
Posted by crabwalk at 12/09/2006 @ 2:26pm
DAVE, I lived in both Cookville and Charlottesville. Racism was insidiously ubiquitous. The WONA was mentioned in both places, frequently. thats were I lernt it. Nigger was heard daily. cookeville was in the 80's, Virginia was in 2000. If you think the south does not still have a racist undercurrent, i have a bridge over the Euphrates i could cut you a deal on. (So does the North btw, western MI as well as many Detroit 'burbs have more than their fair share of white sheets in the closet)
Gotta go, gettin the stink eye from the wife.
Posted by crabwalk at 12/09/2006 @ 2:32pm
Thanks JR. (40 min)
We will not pull out early.
Ever!
And I promise not to, er, do that... thing in the countries, er, rivermouths.
Ever.
Trust me.
And call me UNCLE Sam in public.
Posted by crabwalk at 12/09/2006 @ 2:40pm
Crab, I had no idea.
Posted by johannesrolf at 12/09/2006 @ 2:48pm
The Left seems to me to be led by people like Soros, Moore, Sheehan, Dean, and Huffington. They and average Democrats are united in their hatred of Bush and Republicans.
I'm generally inclined to trade with China, even though I'm concerned with the mistreatment of the Chinese people. I hope through engagement that we can help them build a thriving, educated middle class that will be able to force democratic change. Of course, I'm concerned that our trade dollars are going to tyrants and thugs. Yet, I don't see how a trade embargo would help the Chinese.
Over the past thirty years, capitalism seems to have lifted many millions of Chinese out of poverty. I'm hopeful that this progress will continue. Prior to our engagement with China we had little idea what was going on there. Now we know when the peasants riot, and when they're imprisoned or killed. Truth is a powerful weapon against despots.
Minimizing the footprint of the government generally seems like a good idea to me. Really, how is it the government's business how much money I make each year? And what right does the government have to take my money before I get mine?
Posted by rlmcca at 12/09/2006 @ 3:15pm
CRABWALK: There might be hope for you yet.
My skin is sufficiently thick, but I still don't see the point of juvenile name-calling. I haven't played in a sandbox in years, and I doubt that many here have.
I think it's great that you want to treat your future employees well. But I must admit that I don't understand why you'd set the bar so high before you'd hire. If I were you, I'd try to hire when I needed to, and I'd offer whatever seemed reasonable and affordable. To someone in a deadend job, the job that I'd offer them could still be considerably better than what they've got even if I couldn't offer a fat salary and benefits. Then, if they were good, I'd do what I could to keep them. Retaining good employees is one thing that I think too few businesses focus on. But, I'm not you, and it's a relatively free country. So run your business as you see fit--and good luck. America needs more entrepreneurs, and I know it's not easy.
Posted by rlmcca at 12/09/2006 @ 3:39pm
"Minimizing the footprint of the government generally seems like a good idea to me. Really, how is it the government's business how much money I make each year? And what right does the government have to take my money before I get mine?"
Indeed.
I also agree on China. I have been there and you are correct about the growing middle class...Mao and all the socialistic slogans are no where to be found....anywhere... I go back again in Jan and am looking forward to it...they seem to have more freedoms than before, but I am also a littl;e leary...
Posted by john maasch at 12/09/2006 @ 5:13pm
"America needs more entrepreneurs, and I know it's not easy'
Double indeed.
More wealth creators than wealth redistributors are definatly needed.
Posted by john maasch at 12/09/2006 @ 5:16pm
Posted by STWRILEY 12/08/2006 @ 8:03pm | ignore this person
Agreed. But it goes without saying, most people think John McCain is a saint, when the truth about John McCain is so much different.
Posted by POSEIDON at 12/09/2006 @ 5:50pm
MASK,
STOP BEING PARTISAN. WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT DEMOCRATS AT THE MOMENT:
I am well aware of who the Keating Five were, and the fact that four out of the five were Democrats. I was making reference to the fact that John McCain was among their "distinguished alumni". We are talking about John McCain, aren't we..................?
Posted by MASK 12/08/2006 @ 10:35pm | ignore this person
Uh, POSEI...most of the Keating Five...were Democrats.
Posted by POSEIDON at 12/09/2006 @ 5:54pm
Posted by THEARGUS 12/08/2006 @ 8:11pm | ignore this person
John McCain realizes that the primary Republican voters are far right fringe fanatics and he is simply playing to that base of voters. If they were somewhat moderate and for example, hated things like torture, the rescinding of civil liberties here at home, wars based on lies, Iraqi weapons of mass destruction that have been found in Iraq and shipped to Syria simultaneously, sending more and more American targets to be blown up and shot at in Iraq and giving money to millionaires and billionaires then he would oppose such things. But the far right believes in all those things described above and he must bow down and step and fetch to them otherwise he will not become President.
Posted by POSEIDON at 12/09/2006 @ 6:01pm
Minimizing the footprint of the government generally seems like a good idea to me. Really, how is it the government's business how much money I make each year? And what right does the government have to take my money before I get mine?
Posted by RLMCCA 12/09/2006 @ 3:15pm | ignore this person
this shows you to be a nut case. the tax horse has long ago left the barn, get over it. pay your goddamn taxes and stop bitching about it.
Posted by johannesrolf at 12/11/2006 @ 6:08pm