Long Primary Campaign

[livi]

On the original question:

Bad for the Dem. party.
Good for the democracy of the voters.

[dipso]

Originally Posted by Wayne at Pelican Parts

Have you followed politics for the past several years, or just this year? McCain is very much hated by the conservative wing of his party. He has worked with and sided with Democrats on numerous issues. He is basically a RINO (Republican In Name Only), just like his Kalifornia pal, Arnie. Calling him McBush is such a joke, as he is so far removed from Bush's political agenda, that I still can't believe he won the nomination. McCain's record is widely known and public (unlike Obama's). He's a super-moderate, almost liberal Republican who has consistently crossed party lines. That said, he best fits the majority of the voters in this country (slightly right of center). Unless some crafty campaign tricks skew the basic tenets, McCain will win easily over Mr. I'm so liberal I want to make the US like socialist France Obama.

If McCain picks Lieberman for a running mate, then that will probably just solidify the election.

-Wayne

McCain is not that far removed from Bush's policies. Sure there are a few things that they disagree on like funding stem cell research, drilling in ANWR and assault weapons, but it is the war, economy and how to handle them that people are talking about when they call him McBush. Not to mention he is not that smart.
I am afraid that in order to get out of the mess we are in as a country a "cross your fingers and stay the course" approach isn't going to work.
Just as the"stay and pray" approach isn't working in Iraq.

[Mule]

Seems like you know more about McCain's policies than anybody knows about Hussy's.

[Rick Lee]

The only thing I can think of that any president can do to help the longterm health of our economy is to cut way, way back on spending, stop finding new social programs, stop borrowing, stop raiding the Soc. Sec. trust fund and make tax cuts permanent or cut them further. Hmmmm. Now who's more likely to do that - Obama or McCain?

[kach22i]

Originally Posted by dipso

Either way it shouldn't take someone like Obama that long to make obvious how incoherent McCain is.

Obama is not in the same league of making gaffs like McCain. Obama has made a few lately, but McCain is famous for it. Obama can sit back and let McCain melt in the spotlight.

McCain shoots from the hip and sticks his foot in his mouth all the time (along with some truth). This is something Howard Dean, Joseph Bidden and others I like, also do.

Letting the truth slip is what I call it.

[Mule]

Originally Posted by kach22i

Obama is not in the same league of making gaffs like McCain.

In as much as no one can be right all the time, no one can be wrong all the time either & here's your proof. The blind hog has found an acorn.


Last May, he claimed that tornadoes in Kansas killed a whopping 10,000 people: “In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died — an entire town destroyed.” The actual death toll: 12.

Earlier this month in Oregon, he redrew the map of the United States: “Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go.”

Last week, in front of a roaring Sioux Falls, S.D., audience, Obama exulted: “Thank you, Sioux City. ... I said it wrong. I’ve been in Iowa for too long. I’m sorry.”

Explaining last week why he was trailing Hillary Clinton in Kentucky, Obama again botched basic geography: “Sen. Clinton, I think, is much better known, coming from a nearby state of Arkansas. So it’s not surprising that she would have an advantage in some of those states in the middle.” On what map is Arkansas closer to Kentucky than Illinois?

Obama has as much trouble with numbers as he has with maps. Last March, on the anniversary of the Bloody Sunday march in Selma, Ala., he claimed his parents united as a direct result of the civil rights movement: “There was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Ala., because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born.”

Obama was born in 1961. The Selma march took place in 1965. His spokesman, Bill Burton, later explained that Obama was “speaking metaphorically about the civil-rights movement as a whole.”

Earlier this month in Cape Girardeau, Mo., Obama showed off his knowledge of the war in Afghanistan by homing in on a lack of translators: “We only have a certain number of them, and if they are all in Iraq, then it’s harder for us to use them in Afghanistan.” The real reason it’s “harder for us to use them” in Afghanistan: Iraqis speak Arabic or Kurdish. The Afghanis speak Pashto, Farsi, or other non-Arabic languages.

Over the weekend in Oregon, Obama pleaded ignorance of the decades-old, multibillion-dollar massive Hanford nuclear-waste cleanup: “Here’s something that you will rarely hear from a politician, and that is that I’m not familiar with the Hanford, uuuuhh, site, so I don’t know exactly what’s going on there. (Applause.) Now, having said that, I promise you I’ll learn about it by the time I leave here on the ride back to the airport.”

I assume on that ride, a staffer reminded him that he’s voted on at least one defense-authorization bill that addressed the “costs, schedules, and technical issues” dealing with the nation’s most contaminated nuclear-waste site.

Last March, the Chicago Tribune reported this little-noticed nugget about a fake autobiographical detail in Obama’s Dreams from My Father: “Then, there’s the copy of Life magazine that Obama presents as his racial awakening at age 9. In it, he wrote, was an article and two accompanying photographs of an African-American man physically and mentally scarred by his efforts to lighten his skin. In fact, the Life article and the photographs don’t exist, say the magazine’s own historians.”

And in perhaps the most seriously troubling set of gaffes of them all, Obama told a Portland crowd over the weekend that Iran doesn’t “pose a serious threat to us” — cluelessly arguing that “tiny countries” with small defense budgets can’t do us harm — and then promptly flip-flopped the next day, claiming, “I’ve made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave.”


Obama has made a few lately, but McCain is famous for it.

Obama is the "greatest of all time" when it comes to putting his foot in his mouth!

Obama can sit back and let McCain melt in the spotlight.

Keep watching! Currently, the only vote Obama can count on is racists blacks, homos & socialists. He may loose more than 45 states.

McCain shoots from the hip and sticks his foot in his mouth all the time (along with some truth). This is something Howard Dean, Joseph Bidden and others I like, also do.

Letting the truth slip is what I call it.

Keep watching!

[dipso]

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

The only thing I can think of that any president can do to help the longterm health of our economy is to cut way, way back on spending, stop finding new social programs, stop borrowing, stop raiding the Soc. Sec. trust fund and make tax cuts permanent or cut them further. Hmmmm. Now who's more likely to do that - Obama or McCain?

Who is more likely to stop the $341 million a day occupation of Iraq.
Hmmmm. Now who is more likely to do that.
One says 6 months, one says 100 years. You do the math.

The bucket known as the U.S. has a gigantic hole in it. The ideas you have are like putting a lid on it to stop the evaporation, sure it helps, but it's not going to hold water until you plug the gigantic hole known as the Iraq occupation.

[kach22i]

Originally Posted by dipso

Who is more likely to stop the $341 million a day occupation of Iraq.

Exactly, which is why calling anyone for the war a moderate is just plain silly if not outright ignorant.

Here are some graphics, for those that like that sort of thing.

Link:
http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by dipso

Who is more likely to stop the $341 million a day occupation of Iraq.
Hmmmm. Now who is more likely to do that.
One says 6 months, one says 100 years. You do the math.

The bucket known as the U.S. has a gigantic hole in it. The ideas you have are like putting a lid on it to stop the evaporation, sure it helps, but it's not going to hold water until you plug the gigantic hole known as the Iraq occupation.

I highly doubt Obama will start even a sizeable withdrawal from Iraq, let alone completely end the whole thing. And if he did, it'd still be several years before it was over and it's not like whatever money we spend in Iraq won't be spent elsewhere. Wherever troops are, it costs a LOT of $$ to support them. And I fail to see how any of that would make a difference to our economy. The gov't. will still spend every single penny it can, just on different stuff.

[kach22i]

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

Wherever troops are, it costs a LOT of $$ to support them.

The national guard will be able to come home.

The proposed budget put out by the national black caucus had full troop withdraw costing as much as staying for a year. However at the end of the year the spending in that part of the budget would drop 3/4rds and be for just supporting the effort in Afghanistan.

[RoninLB]

let's not forget that the military has to be rebuilt to pre Clinton manpower.

[Racerbvd]

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

I highly doubt Obama will start even a sizeable withdrawal from Iraq, let alone completely end the whole thing. And if he did, it'd still be several years before it was over and it's not like whatever money we spend in Iraq won't be spent elsewhere. Wherever troops are, it costs a LOT of $$ to support them. And I fail to see how any of that would make a difference to our economy. The gov't. will still spend every single penny it can, just on different stuff.

the racist POS would have to win first, and if Hilderbeast prediction comes true, well, we will just have to wait & see. He has made it very clear that he will weaken this country, hell he even admitted it



Just what this country needs, a guy who puts other coutries ahead of America

[livi]

$341 million a day??!!!

Wow! Gods creation no 1 really takes killing each other serious!

Couldn´t you take a coffee brake, for say 15 minutes next Sunday, sending me a spared million or two...

[Mule]

Obama will do whatever Zbignev Brezinksi tells him. Remember, when Zbig pulls his hand out of Obama's butt, Obama shuts up!

[Justin S]

I was kind of hoping for Ron Paul to win the republican convention...

I really could care less about the democrats, the two running are two versions of the same thing. I would rather see Hillary with a republican congress then Obama anything. I'm turning my TV off during the democratic convention, just tell me when its over.

[Racerbvd]

Originally Posted by Wayne at Pelican Parts

That's a pretty telling video. It just reaks of weakness. No wonder Hamas supports him.

-Wayne

The sad thing is some here will see this & think that it is great and not be worried about what would happen.

[RoninLB]

I heard that N Calif green fruity growers wanted Ron Paul drug policy to win. [he did advance the libertine's power]



markets may increase after Dems get in because things never turn out as bad as everyone thinks.

Having the far left influence strategic policy is another story.

[Rearden]

Originally Posted by kach22i

Exactly, which is why calling anyone for the war a moderate is just plain silly if not outright ignorant.

Here are some graphics, for those that like that sort of thing.

Defense spending is relatively low, after you normalize it. It's the entitlement programs that continue to grow. Look what the Great Society brought us: lots of debt, and an underclass dependent on the government. And you want more and more and more.

[kach22i]

Originally Posted by Rearden

Defense spending is relatively low, after you normalize it. It's the entitlement programs that continue to grow. Look what the Great Society brought us: lots of debt, and an underclass dependent on the government. And you want more and more and more.

That chart is a good one, something Ron Paul would bring up while everyone else in both parties runs for cover.

From what I read the non-military related budget has increased 11% under Bush Cheney and the Republican Congress.

The great pharmaceutical company give-away (Medicaid Reform), partial funding of No-Child-Left-Behind and all around pork barrel spending makes up a another good part of it.

One very large line item expense has been Homeland Defense spending, I'll get too angry trying to explain how that money has been squandered.

[kach22i]

Originally Posted by Wayne at Pelican Parts

That's a pretty telling video. It just reaks of weakness. No wonder Hamas supports him.

-Wayne

We are not going to fight small integrated into mid-east society Hamas and radical Islamoism shism with nukes are we?

How about we take all that money we spend and will spend on nukes and spend it on closing or modernising the Madras schools funded by our friends the Saudi's?