McCain Is Bush
May 12, 2008h/t Think Progress.
Mitt Romney told Wolf Blitzer that McCain being Bush III “isn’t going to stick.” But McCain surrogate Congerssman Roy Blunt of Missouri said, “I think that’s a good thing.”
LiberalLand
Where All States Are Blue, But Some Are Bluer Than Others
Alan~ Maybe this will help you understand why some people are willing to vote for McCain if Hillary doesn’t get the nomination (I say Hillary b/c I really can’t understand myself why someone would go from Barack to John). If Hillary doesn’t get the nomination, I’m going to take another look at McCain. I’m a moderate. I’m ready to vote for Hillary in November b/c I trust her and Bill to get the job done (doesn’t matter that Bill will ‘only’ be The First Gentleman, those two are a team). I grew up under Clinton’s administration, and heard my parents speak often about how hard he was working for ‘us’. After growing up and looking into his policies myself, I can say that I love him for what I know to be true about him and not just b/c my parents praised him. Now, I fell in love with John McCain when he came on THE DAILY SHOW. And don’t forget the tv movie about his time in Vietnam. But perhaps you were right when you said last week the John McCain of 2008 isn’t the same McCain from 2000.
Barack’s going to have to do more than say he doesn’t want Bush III, he’s going to have to state SPECIFICALLY where McCain is similar and what he’s going to do different.
BUT McCain is no moderate.
He’s a conservative. The rabid right thinks he’s not conservative enough; that’s there criticism of him.
As of late, he’s clearly pandering to the wacky right and has moved even more to their end of the political spectrum.
I can’t say flip-flopped because conservatives don’t flip-flop.
McCain is the most moderate of the three. He’s a conservative, no doubt, but a moderate conservative. He’s the only one of the three who has reached across the aisle to truly exhibit bipartisanship (much to the chagrin of conservatives). This nonsense about Clinton and Obama reaching across the aisle is crazy.
What have those two done to reach across the aisle? Seriously? Maybe I’m just not seeing it, but especially Obama claims change and uniting the country…bullhockey. McCain is the best chance at compromise.
And I’m not a *huge* fan of McCain, either, but he’s the best we’ve got.
Flap:
If you don’t think this country is screwed up enough, then by all means vote for McCain. And you are correct, he’s the best you’ve got (compared to Romney and Giuliani).
He’s the best WE have as a nation.
Do you think bankrupting and destroying our healthcare system by nationalizing it is the best way to go? That will HELP us? Do you want to wait 6 months for a doctor’s appointment?
It is true that McCain wants to continue some Bush policies, but there are some stark differences between the two men. McCain is much more interested in bipartisanship and environmental stewardship than Bush is, and I think that he would do a much better job of managing this ill conceived war in Iraq if it truly has to continue.
Don’t get me wrong, I agree with Obama’s general point about McCain running for a third Bush term. He certainly wants to continue many of the failed economic polices, and well as the war in Iraq, the biggest blunder at all. And it does seem like every day McCain caves in more and more to his principles and sells his soul to the far right — at least that’s what I thought when he sought out the Hagee and Parsley endorsements. Whether that will guide his policy is anybody’s guess. I think it’s just lowly political pandering.
Maybe I’m too optimistic about the future, but no matter who gets elected, it’s not hard to beat Bush!
OBAMA 08
You’re so smart, Michael. You get on my nerves! :-)
Here’s Mikey Again,
Praising Cain in one paragraph, loathing him in the next, while playing the “CRUSADER”, then supporting a Muslim pretending to be christian.
Yep, Mike is brilliant.
By the way Mike. Please enlighten me with your knowledge of the CRUSADES, and the point you were trying to make when you mentioned it.
Ken~ you are just hateful. Not to mention inaccurate and narrow-minded. Just go away.
Cheryl calling Ken hateful…now that’s hypocrisy!
Hypocrisy to you because you’re ignorant. If you knew anything about the regular posters here, you’d know that Ken is as much of a hateful son of a bitch as you are. Not only that, he’s a racist.
Once again, Budda, you’ve made an ass of yourself, making statements without any knowledge of the circumstances.
Cheryl: at best you’re sophmoric
Flap:
So you think that if we nationalize healthcare we would have to wait 6 months for a doctor’s appointment. I thought this was the greatest country in the world. Just because Canada has that problem doesn’t necessarily mean we will have that problem. I know the healthcare system in France is operating just fine. Contrary to what you may believe, it is possible to have nationalized healthcare without sacrificing much.
High school sophmoric or college sophmoric? Because if you mean high school sophmoric, I’m going to go sit in a corner and cry.
Cheryl the definition of sophmoric is: conceited and overconfident of knowledge but poorly informed and immature.
I rest my case.
Thanks for the support Budda. I’ve never made a hateful statement in any of my blogs. Critical? Yes. Most of these people base their statements from what they’ve heard, not fact. When anyone questions their position or proves them wrong they get hateful and nasty. Cherylcarrol is one of them as you can see, and Micheal really gets testy and threatening. Watch for Craig in Bull Island too, a self made philosopher who fails miserably at philosophy.
Ken we are all entitled to make our ’statements’ of fact and or opinion regardless of how right or wrong they may be. It’s people whose malicious, spiteful and domineering behavior enters into it when they believe an other persons statement doesn’t meet their standards that it degenerates into name calling ( Cheryl’s specialty). She’s into censorship.
Budda~ really, I’m in that corner crying right now. By the way smarty pants, ’sophmoric’ is spelled ’sophomoric’.
You’d like to think that I’m sophomoric because you know damned well you’re wrong. YOU came on this blog criticizing others. If you’re going to be an ass to everyone else, I’m going to call you on it. Defending myself and others is not ‘malicious, spiteful, and domineering’. And now you’re contradicting yourself. You say that everyone has the right to state their opinion ‘regardless of how right or wrong they may be’. So why did you go off on myself and the others participating in the discussion on morality? Hmmmm??? If someone had done what you did to us, I would have reacted the same way towards them.
Your buddy Ken did the same thing.
http://liberalland.com/2008/05/03/hagee-get-a-job-or-starve/
I participate on this blog to increase my political knowledge. I seek clarification on various topics, I seek answers to questions that I wouldn’t even know how to begin answering. I’m not conceited and overconfident. You’re reaching, buddy. My criticism of your attitude has revolved around much more than name calling, so you can hardly say that I’m “degenerating” into it.
If you’re going to comment on what someone else has said, then READ their post in full. I haven’t criticized your opinions, I’ve criticized your demeaning attitude. And domineering? Oh, PLEASE. What do you call telling us we went off topic, b/c we didn’t stay within some black and white constraints you wanted us to stay in? No one had a problem with it. Furthermore, religion has come up a few times in this blog. No one has shied away from it, we discuss it.
Ken~ “Most of these people base their statements from what they’ve heard, not fact.” Here we go again. Where are YOUR facts???
to both of you ASSHOLES~ I’m glad that you’ve each found a friend.
I’m done with both of you. Carry on as you wish.
regarding the degeneration into name calling:
Dana is so good looking it’s somehow hard to believe she’s so stupid….or corrupt..or such a political whore
by Budda April 30, 2008 at 8:46 pm
Oh my head is about to explode! There are so many bad puns/jokes/comments to say..so little time…
by Budda April 30, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Looks like you don’t like people criticizing others either:
Phew ! What can I say to all that? Oh yea, we illiterate white people too!
by Budda April 30, 2008 at 8:52 p
Suntan forgot to insult the Philipino-midget-humpbacks.
Yes, Cheryl some of us do remember Nam..it was an interesting and enlightening time. Some of us were even shot at and lived to tell the REAL story. It was when the “Greatest Generation” was told to stop micromanaging their childrens lives.
by Budda May 1, 2008 at 5:01 pm
regarding my supposed conceit and overconfidence:
What’s so wrong with socialism?
Just a question…
by cherylcarroll April 30, 2008 at 1:11 am
“What’s wrong with Socialism?” The same thing that’s wrong with Capitalism…it’s an absolute. Taken to the extreme they both have serious faults and problems, but moderated and given some flexability the both have good points…or so I think.
by Budda April 30, 2008 at 1:37 am
I’ve never had anything “mean” to say to you. You started this.
Cheryl: you are ignorant and an ill-tempered shrew. You’re also probably a 400lb. agroraphobic. Please go rant and have a nervous break down somewhere else.
Notice I am now starting to call you names, just like you do, only I haven’t resorted to vulgarity…yet.
You don’t understand half of what is said here and you misinterpret the other half.
I did not start this, as you say, and you have been nothing but mean to many people. Give it up and make nice.
i agree with budda cheryl’s a bitch.
Haha, thanks Cheryl :)
Budda and Ken, have you noticed that we all get along fine until you guys show up and spew your vile and lies? Accusing me of being “testy and threatening” is nothing short of absurd. I only responding to your rude bantering and personal attacks on me and so many others who post here.
I have no problem with talking to people I disagree with. I actually enjoy it and that’s one of the reasons I post here. What I don’t like is to have people like you show up and act like a know it all by calling me “Mikey” and questioning my credibility, when you clearly don’t have any yourself. I’m wiling to carry on a civil debate with you, but if you’re not interested in that, then I’m not interested in taking part in your little games of internet drama.
“Here’s Mikey Again,
Praising Cain in one paragraph, loathing him in the next, while playing the “CRUSADER”, then supporting a Muslim pretending to be christian.
Yep, Mike is brilliant.”
———-
“Cain” deserves some praise. I’m not above admitting that just because I’m a liberal. The point I was trying to make was that he would be better than Bush. The point I was trying to make in the second paragraph though, is that while he would be an improvement over Bush, it would be a very modest improvement compared to if Barack or Hillary gets elected.
I’m not worried about these 2 in the least, and Chad doesn’t know enough about previous posts to comment.
i’ve been following this little war and if you don’t think calling somebody a fucking asshole isn’t mean then there is no hope for you. peace, sista
I’m not your “sista”, and I doubt you’ve read all the posts. I called them “assholes”, not “fucking assholes”, but I do like your phrasing much better. I think it interesting that I’m mean, but their behavior is totally okay. Again, I don’t think you’ve read all the posts. So I guess that makes you an uninformed fucking asshole.
~the 400 pound agoraphobic sophomoric bitch
Chad is correct Cheryl, you did call me a F**king A**hole right after you flammed “How dare you come on a LIBERAL blog and tell someone what they can and can not say”, - which I did not do. I just mentioned that we were getting off topic.
All questions and challenges on this blog are met with civility except by you. Even some taunts are met objectively and with some civility.
You’ve displyed emotional unstability in your rantings and an over-sensitivity to objective and civil criticism. Your aggressive nature reveals much.
You just absolutely have to feel that you’re right, don’t you Budda? Okay then, you’re right. Although it’s interesting that you chose not to comment on the previous quotes of yourself that I posted to remind you of the type of comments YOU have put on this blog.
And I didn’t call you a fucking asshole. Just an asshole. But hey, who’s reading comments? Let’s just glance over them and fly off the handle, and then whine when you’re put in your place.
Some are sarcastic, some are humorous and some are profound.
and some degenerate into name calling.
Some definitions…
SARCHASM: The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn’t get it.
BOZONE: The substance surrounding stupid people that stops bright ideas from penetrating.
IGNORANUS: A person who is both stupid and an a**hole.
…………..this is humor not name calling…
You got me cryin’ again :-(
This is really getting boring, Budda.
Hey Budda,
We’re becoming famous within the realm of the uneducated, who pretend to be.