RotoGuru Politics Forum

View the Forum Registry

XML Get RSS Feed for this thread


Self-edit this thread


0 Subject: The Real John McCain

Posted by: Pancho Villa
- [495272016] Mon, Apr 07, 2008, 01:04

While the focus recently has been to bloody Obama by any means necessary, and Hillary has been the controversial subject of debate for almost two decades, it seems only fair to start examining John McCain in earnest, good and bad.

I think it's fair to say Republicans view McCain's strengths as national security and pro-life positions, as well as embracing at least some modicum of economic conservatism.

From a Democratic standpoint, McCain's biggest weakness is his insistence on continuing the Bush administration's failed policies in Iraq.

Evidence of this position from a scathing op/ed by

Frank Rich.

As for Basra, Mr. McCain told Joe Klein of Time in January that it was “not a problem.” He told John King of CNN while in Baghdad last month that Mr. Sadr’s “influence has been on the wane for a long time.” When the battle ended last week, Mr. McCain said: “Apparently it was Sadr who asked for the cease-fire, declared a cease-fire. It wasn’t Maliki. Very rarely do I see the winning side declare a cease-fire.” At least the last of those sentences was accurate. It was indeed the losing side — Maliki’s — that pleaded for the cease-fire.

Perhaps all these mistaken judgments can be attributed to the fog of war. But Mr. McCain’s bigger strategic picture, immutable no matter what happens on the ground, is foggier still. Like Mr. Bush, he keeps selling Iraq as the central front in the war on Al Qaeda. But Al Qaeda was not even a participant in the Basra battle, which was an eruption of a Shiite-vs.-Shiite civil war. (Al Qaeda is busy enough in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the actual central front in the war on terror.)

Mr. McCain is also fond of portraying Mr. Maliki’s “democracy” in Iraq as an essential bulwark against Iran; his surrogate Lindsey Graham habitually refers to Mr. Sadr’s Mahdi Army as “Iranian-backed militias.” But the political coalition and militia propping up Mr. Maliki are even closer to Iran than the Sadrists. McClatchy Newspapers reported last week that the Maliki-Sadr cease-fire was not only brokered in Iran but by a general whose name is on the Treasury Department’s terrorist list: the commander of the Quds force of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard.

So this is where this latest defining moment in Iraq leaves us: with victories for Iran and Mr. Sadr, and with Iraqi forces that still can’t stand up (training cost to American taxpayers so far: $22 billion) so we can stand down. The Baghdad Green Zone, pummeled with lethal mortar fire, proved vulnerable once again. Basra remains so perilous that Britain has had to suddenly halt its planned troop withdrawals. Tony Blair had ordered the drawdown a year ago, after declaring that “the next chapter in Basra’s history will be written by the Iraqis.”

The surge is a success in exactly one way: American forces, by putting their lives on the line and benefiting from a now-defunct Sadr cease-fire, have reduced violence in Baghdad (though only to early 2005 levels). But as the Middle East scholar Juan Cole has written, “the ‘surge’ was never meant to be the objective but rather the means.”

None of the objectives have been met. Remember that “return on success” — as in returning troops — that Mr. Bush promised in January’s State of the Union? We will end 2008 with more Americans in Iraq than the 132,000 at the time the surge began. Even Gen. David Petraeus said last month that there has not been “sufficient progress” on the other most important objective, Iraqi political reconciliation. Mr. Maliki’s move against Mr. Sadr in Basra, done without even consulting Iraq’s “democratically elected” Parliament, was an attempt to take out his opponent by force rather than wait for the October provincial elections.


There's been lots of talk about how naive Obama is concerning world affairs. However, when attempting to discern McCain's quote:

Mr. Sadr’s “influence has been on the wane for a long time.”

I have to wonder WTF he's talking about. Sadr City alone has 2.5 million residents, 10% of Iraq's entire population. Sadrists are likely a majority of the population in Basra, Najaf, Nasariya and a host of other cities in the Shiite south. It's probably not a stretch to say that Sadrists comprise a full 15-20% of the entire Iraqi population, roughly equal to the Sunni Arab and Kurdish populations.

If there's any evidence of Sadr's influence waning, it is with the most radical contingencies of Sadrists who refused to abide by the cease-fire he called for in August.

One has to wonder if this country is prepared to endure four more years of failed policies in Iraq by a leader who apparently refuses to make an honest assessment of the situation.



Only the 50 most recent replies are currently shown. Click on this text to display hidden posts as well.
[Lengthy or complex threads may require a slight delay before updating.]
696sarge33rd
      ID: 76442923
      Sat, Oct 11, 2008, 20:43
Wasnt 'plants' from the rightwing whack farms that went out and blew up Drs Offices, claiming it to be Gods work.

Besides which, Baldy doesnt know that they were plants. Just his mindless effort at deflecting the point.
697Tree
      ID: 12938521
      Sun, Oct 12, 2008, 01:15
we should be afraid...

these "christians" are so filled with hate. part of Baldwin's ilk...
698walk
      ID: 5292522
      Sun, Oct 12, 2008, 09:25
Makes me think of the movie I saw last night, Bill Maher's Religulous. Spot on. Messed up.
699sarge33rd
      ID: 76442923
      Sun, Oct 12, 2008, 14:19
The 'absoluteness' of this divisive political scenario we live with today, is the true legacy of the current administration.
700Boldwin
      ID: 29241221
      Mon, Oct 13, 2008, 03:29
Sarge [whose livelihood was killed by Obama's Acorn/Fannie Mae activism and Sarge is too dumb to get it]
[How's the auto dealing coming after Obama threw a sabot into the credit world?

Well at least the poor got houses...no wait, they are upside down, and couldn't even make the payments before the depression hit and will lose those houses anyway...]
It's the same divide as the 60's. It never went away. It isn't any worse. Unless you consider socialism a middle ground between marxism and capitalism, but since socialism is marxism, there truly is no middle ground.

No not even communitarianism, the third way, not the DLC way and certainly not Obama's way. There is no middle ground.
701sarge33rd
      ID: 76442923
      Mon, Oct 13, 2008, 09:39
You're right about one thing Baldy, those of us whose income is largely predicated on our customers ability to obtain financing, are getting killed. Quite honestly, my income is down 70% or more from a year ago. However, it was 'fannie mae' as you claim. It was Countrywide, Wachovia, WAMU, Lehamn, Bear, etc etc etc.
702Perm Dude
      ID: 169101214
      Mon, Oct 13, 2008, 09:39
It's really just sad that, even in this thread, Baldwin is all about painting Obama as some kind of Skull & Bones, shadowy, other. Does he know any other way to approach politics? Is this how he justifies his political involvement: I smear all Democrats equally so this is OK?
703sarge33rd
      ID: 76442923
      Mon, Oct 13, 2008, 09:40
However, it was 'fannie mae' as you claim.

yet another in my long ist of typos. Should read:

However, it wasn't 'fannie mae' as you claim.
704walk
      ID: 181472714
      Mon, Oct 13, 2008, 11:37
What "they" really mean by asking: "Who is the Real Obama?"

Cenk sums it up nicely and accurately... "Not one of us!" (Peter Gabriel) -- (just more capable to lead)
705Boldwin
      ID: 44916136
      Mon, Oct 13, 2008, 11:47
Sarge

You really aren't following along. Fannie Mae bought and sold those bad subprime mortgages to investors, which is where Countrywide, Wachovia, WAMU, Lehamn, Bear, etc etc etc. come into the picture.
706sarge33rd
      ID: 76442923
      Mon, Oct 13, 2008, 17:55
Fannie Mae wasnt the originator of ALL of those 'mortgage backed' securities. Nor, were they the only ones selling/buying etc.

It wasnt the CRA which led to the problem in this arena. Quite honestly, it was Graham-Leach-Bliley which did away with the last remnants of the Glass-Steagall Act and THAT Act, is what prevented investment banking and mortgage banking from being mixed under the one roof. (Thereby allowing for the creation of these phantom securities.)
707Boldwin
      ID: 44916136
      Tue, Oct 14x, 2008, 00:31
A quick trip to google university does not save you.

I didn't remotely say they were the originator of all those loans. They bought the majority of them, repackaged them with good loans and bad, and sold them to the investment houses that are now owned by someone else.

Banks made bad loans for the following reasons...

1) The CRA meant they could be sued and fined for $500 million if they didn't and they would be prevented from expansion.

2) They knew for sure that Fannie Mae would take the bad loans off their hands.
708Mith
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Tue, Oct 14x, 2008, 11:41
Popping in, I was wondering if I'd see Boldwin so fully indoctrinated in the agenda to dehumanize Barack Obama.

When I left, B's propaganda points of the day were that Obama's American citizenship was in doubt and that he was throwing political rallies for anti-Christian politicians in Africa.

Now I see that Senator Obama, along with the CRA (which was enacted in 1977) are responsible for the economic crisis. Who knew the US Economy was such a delicate thing that all it took was one act of banking/housing legislation and a but single lawsuit 20 years later to bring it all to it's knees in another 10 years?

Couldn't have anything to do with the government's extreme easing of debt-to-asset policy for the country's biggest credit brokers at exactly the time that the housing market exploded, could it?

My take (check the comments).
709Pancho Villa
      ID: 51546319
      Tue, Oct 14x, 2008, 12:04
Mith,

Standing ovation! Your analysis is sorely missed on these boards.
710Mith
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Tue, Oct 14x, 2008, 12:41
Thanks PV
711Perm Dude
      ID: 11935149
      Tue, Oct 14x, 2008, 12:44
Yeah, a good site, MITH. I check it about everyday.
712Tree
      ID: 13714198
      Tue, Oct 14x, 2008, 13:04
good to see you, albeit briefly, MITH.

i didn't know about your blog. i'll add it to my google reader - btw, google reader in, 2020, will be blamed by the radical right for the decline of America.
713Boldwin
      ID: 44916136
      Tue, Oct 14x, 2008, 14:22
Hold on!

Not the slam dunk you think you have...quite the opposite:

From your material...
The Committee accepted a substitute bill authored by Banking Chairman Richard Shelby (R-AL). They disagreed to a Democratic substitute by Ranking Member Paul Sarbanes (D-MD). The Sarbanes substitute would have created an affordable housing fund based on the GSEs’ profits, eased portfolio limits, streamlined program approval and increased the conforming loan limits for high cost areas. It failed 9 yeas to 11 nays, and the Shelby bill passed on a straight party line vote of 11 yeas to 9 nays.
As portrayed by the right, the Dems were the ones pushing for things in Sarbanes' bill like...

1) an affordable housing fund...read slush fund for Acorn and allied Democrat pet projects.

2) eased portfolio limits...read 'why stop at 3 million illegal aliens with mortgages, lets shoot for 5 million'...'Let's increase the percentage of underperforming loans.'

3) increased the conforming loan limits for high cost areas...read 'let's make all our loans to poor people' [slight hyperbole]

That my old friend is an economic suicide pact between the Dems and the liberal run Fannie Mae.

Dems aparently voted straight party line for Sarbanes' and definately voted straight party line against the Republican's more stringent standards, standards we all have great reason to regret were not imposed.

Yet somehow to you these straight party line voters were some bipartisan resource the Republicans could and should have drawn on to get this passed in the senate where...according to your material...

The bill is not expected to gain full Senate consideration unless an accommodation can be made to attract support from Democrats.

How in the world does your supporting material lead you to conclude that Democrats in general were any more inclined to push for fiscal responsibility than the Dems in that video who clearly were being obstructionist to imposing reasonable standards at Fannie Mae?

If you can work a little harder to prove that Bush was working with the Dems to evade regulating Fannie Mae more power to you. I'll throw him under the bus in a heartbeat. What your material does not do is absolve Democrats from killing Fannie Mae by forcing them to make more and more bad loans.

If the Republicans on that committee were voting straight party line for tuffer regulations at Fannie Mae as your 'supporting material' shows, then your evidence flies in the face of the conclusion you are stretching to make.

In an environment where Fannie Mae was buying politicians with campaign donations left and right, why are you so confident Republicans could have so easily used their majority to overpower a president and a solid block of opposing Democrats?
714Boldwin
      ID: 44916136
      Tue, Oct 14x, 2008, 14:26
And I will also ask you if you could go back in time to 2006 and give McCain the tuffer oversight of Fannie Mae that he asked for would you do it?

Saying it was by then too late to set the house in order is pulled straight from...
715Boldwin
      ID: 44916136
      Tue, Oct 14x, 2008, 14:36
BTW try being the majority whip selling squeezing off unwise lending to the poor when they know they will be demagogued as hating poor people by the next well funded Democrat they run against.

Sure it was an easy task somehow not undertaken. Ridiculous attempt to lay the blame exactly where it does not lie.

I applaud you for the energy it took to make a blog, and do that research, all while taking on two jobs in your work-a-day life...but when your own research disproves your presumptive conclusion you've got to change your mind.
716Mith
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Tue, Oct 14x, 2008, 15:04
The bill is not expected to gain full Senate consideration unless an accommodation can be made to attract support from Democrats.

Who's fault is that? The Shelby version of the bill passed in committee.

The GOP controlled what was put to a vote on the senate floor.

A sister bill had already passed in the House with solid majorities on both sides of the aisle.

Even if you believe what you wrote, what you're saying is that suddenly the Senate Republicans decided that appeasing Democrats in the chamber was more imp[ortant than getting the issue settled. I don't think so my old friend. Like I wrote in that piece, the details are murky. I think the best bet for why it didn't make it to the floor is probably further objections from the executive branch. I'm sorry but the Dems just didn't have the sway in the 109th that you are asserting.

But all that is beside the point. The main portion of that post wasn't the reason I posted here and it isn't the intended response to your recent propaganda in this thread. Your response is in the comments section. Whatever changes might have been made to the CRA and whatever precedent that ACORN lawsuit might have set (both years before the fact) the housing crisis is simply not possible if the FEC didn't change the game:
The so-called net capital rule was created in 1975 to allow the SEC to oversee broker-dealers, or companies that trade securities for customers as well as their own accounts. It requires that firms value all of their tradable assets at market prices, and then it applies a haircut, or a discount, to account for the assets' market risk. So equities, for example, have a haircut of 15%, while a 30-year Treasury bill, because it is less risky, has a 6% haircut.

The net capital rule also requires that broker dealers limit their debt-to-net capital ratio to 12-to-1, although they must issue an early warning if they begin approaching this limit, and are forced to stop trading if they exceed it, so broker dealers often keep their debt-to-net capital ratios much lower.

In 2004, the European Union passed a rule allowing the SEC's European counterpart to manage the risk both of broker dealers and their investment banking holding companies. In response, the SEC instituted a similar, voluntary program for broker dealers with capital of at least $5 billion, enabling the agency to oversee both the broker dealers and the holding companies.

This alternative approach, which all five broker-dealers that qualified — Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley — voluntarily joined, altered the way the SEC measured their capital. Using computerized models, the SEC, under its new Consolidated Supervised Entities program, allowed the broker dealers to increase their debt-to-net-capital ratios, sometimes, as in the case of Merrill Lynch, to as high as 40-to-1. It also removed the method for applying haircuts, relying instead on another math-based model for calculating risk that led to a much smaller discount.
try being the majority whip selling squeezing off unwise lending to the poor when they know they will be demagogued as hating poor people by the next well funded Democrat they run against.

Ha! So the congressional majority gets a pass for being victimized by the electoral process! I'm just so ridiculous!

For the record, I don't "lay the blame" for the economic crisis at the feet of Senate Republicans. If I have to place the largest burden on just one entity it would be the SEC. They're the ones who changed the rules to allow the huge firms to go crazy in the first place. Reigning in FM/FM would certainly have helped but I believe those mortgages would have been bought up anyway, even if they had to go
overseas. That's where a large bulk of those bundles wound up anyway.

But as I noted in the last paragraph of comment #2, there was help from all sides on this issue. Alan Greenspan helped to convince Americans that ARMs were safe because the real estate market would continue to rise, prompting the flipping craze.

I'd also love to see a breakdown of how many of these bad loans were taken out by low and middle income earners who moved into the purchased house vs property flippers who were buying and selling 2 or more per year.
717Boldwin
      ID: 44916136
      Tue, Oct 14x, 2008, 15:13
If the bundles weren't full of crap, there never would have been a collapse of confidence making the SEC's role relevent.
718Mith
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Tue, Oct 14x, 2008, 15:26
You can try to convince yourself of that if you insist but the issues you blame occurred long before the permissable debt to capital ratio was more than tripled. An effective SEC (the entire point of their existence is oversight, right?) would have known whether they were allowing broker-dealers to bite off more than they can chew. Effective oversight at the mortgage brokers would have reigned in the orgy or ARMs that they issued despite knowing the risks of an extended market slowdown.

You can't even show me that he bulk of bad loans went to low income buyers trying to get into a home rather than middle and upper income property flippers trying to get in on the action. The latter group has absolutely nothing to do with the ACORN suit that you hilariously assert is one of the primary causes of the collapse.
719Mith
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Tue, Oct 14x, 2008, 15:39
I forgot to include a third category I'd like to see in the breakdown of bad loans - home equity loans. Anyway, the rabid right (which, these days, is most of the right) is trying to change history with each time they set upon a new target to blame the economic crisis on. How many middle class earners who have nothing to do with the CRA decided they could afford far more home than they had any business getting into when they heard this:
One way homeowners attempt to manage their payment risk is to use fixed-rate mortgages, which typically allow homeowners to prepay their debt when interest rates fall but do not involve an increase in payments when interest rates rise. Homeowners pay a lot of money for the right to refinance and for the insurance against increasing mortgage payments. Calculations by market analysts of the "option adjusted spread" on mortgages suggest that the cost of these benefits conferred by fixed-rate mortgages can range from 0.5 percent to 1.2 percent, raising homeowners' annual after-tax mortgage payments by several thousand dollars. Indeed, recent research within the Federal Reserve suggests that many homeowners might have saved tens of thousands of dollars had they held adjustable-rate mortgages rather than fixed-rate mortgages during the past decade, though this would not have been the case, of course, had interest rates trended sharply upward.

American homeowners clearly like the certainty of fixed mortgage payments. This preference is in striking contrast to the situation in some other countries, where adjustable-rate mortgages are far more common and where efforts to introduce American-type fixed-rate mortgages generally have not been successful. Fixed-rate mortgages seem unduly expensive to households in other countries. One possible reason is that these mortgages effectively charge homeowners high fees for protection against rising interest rates and for the right to refinance.

American consumers might benefit if lenders provided greater mortgage product alternatives to the traditional fixed-rate mortgage. To the degree that households are driven by fears of payment shocks but are willing to manage their own interest rate risks, the traditional fixed-rate mortgage may be an expensive method of financing a home.
- Alan Greenspan 2/23/04
720Tree
      ID: 13714198
      Tue, Oct 14x, 2008, 16:29
Baldwin's current masturbatory fixture du jour (having temporarily taken Coulter's place) is using the name ACORN for all manner of things, so of course he's going to.

Palin: Obama must ‘rein in’ ACORN

oy. they are so desperate, grasping at any straw.
721Great One
      ID: 497221412
      Wed, Oct 15, 2008, 13:28
722DWetzel at work
      ID: 278201415
      Fri, Oct 17, 2008, 17:18
McCain camp: Obama's people "turned up the heat" on Joe the Plumber

What the hell bizarro crap is this?
723walk
      ID: 559391320
      Fri, Oct 17, 2008, 22:31
It's an attempt to say McCain is more aligned with "middle America"...however, Joe the Plumber hardly represents the median income of Americans and Obama is not attacking him. It's a strategy...it's politics.
724biliruben
      Leader
      ID: 589301110
      Fri, Oct 17, 2008, 23:43
Nice blog, MITH! Nice to see you around these parts again.
725Tree
      ID: 559491723
      Sat, Oct 18, 2008, 00:55
Walk - i think he's more referring to the fact that McCain is claiming that Obama is responsible for the TV crews camped out in front of Joe's house, the media people digging through his files, and so on.

more disgusting tactics from one of the most disgusting presidential campaigns ever....this guy was a national hero?!?!
726walk
      ID: 559391320
      Sat, Oct 18, 2008, 09:49
Got it, Tree. Seems like everything is Obama's fault.
727walk
      ID: 559391320
      Sat, Oct 18, 2008, 10:44
Boy, well done, MITH. Nice to see you and now I have your blog bookmarked.
728DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Sat, Oct 18, 2008, 13:46
"Walk - i think he's more referring to the fact that McCain is claiming that Obama is responsible for the TV crews camped out in front of Joe's house, the media people digging through his files, and so on."

Precisely. (Well, approximately precisely.)
729Tree
      ID: 559491723
      Sun, Oct 19, 2008, 08:56
the REAL John McCain
730Tree
      ID: 559491723
      Thu, Oct 23, 2008, 15:26
McCain says Obama will 'say anything' to win

...says the guy who sold out his own beliefs and legacy in his own attempts to win....

oooops...and there's that short fuse again...
731walk
      ID: 559391320
      Sun, Oct 26, 2008, 08:05
NYT, Brooks. Ceding the Center

Base is a prereq; a shame a leader could not continue to lead based on established personal principles. Now, it's either a loss or more divisiveness.
732Boldwin
      ID: 419402022
      Sun, Oct 26, 2008, 10:22
You do realize what a ridiculous thing it is for Brooks to be advising the Republican party, don't you?

Coopted by the Clintons, gay, in other words what a surprise he isn't much of a social conservative, traitorous to his former party...carries not an ounce of weight with Republicans right of the Rockafeller family.
733sarge33rd
      ID: 76442923
      Sun, Oct 26, 2008, 11:51
Coopted by the Clintons, gay, in other words what a surprise he isn't much of a social conservative, traitorous to his former party...carries not an ounce of weight with Republicans right of the Rockafeller family.

English translation: He disagrees with me, so how Republican can he be?
734walk
      ID: 559391320
      Sun, Oct 26, 2008, 13:00
"Co-opted by the Clintons, gay..." WTF?
735Boldwin
      ID: 419402022
      Sun, Oct 26, 2008, 14:59
David Brooks while a republican set out to write a book about Hillary. He ended up becoming sexually involved with the male staffer Hillary sent out to work with him. He went from there into a vendetta series of backstabbings directed at his former friends on the right.

Including establishing Media Matters which badgers the media to be more left leaning as if that were possible.

Including becoming one of the biggest proponents of killing right wing talk radio thru a re-established 'Fairness Doctrine'.

Just one of those stories a veteran of the Clinton era culture wars would remember.
736Boldwin
      ID: 419402022
      Sun, Oct 26, 2008, 15:09
Today he conducts these leftist adventures all the while pleading for gay marriage and pretending to be the house conservative at the NYT.
737Tree
      ID: 559491723
      Sun, Oct 26, 2008, 15:12
"Co-opted by the Clintons, gay..." WTF?

more of the Baldwin "gays are less than human" rhetoric his loving christian self likes to bring up...
738Seattle Zen
      ID: 358591721
      Sun, Oct 26, 2008, 17:25
Baldy, I think you've combined David Brock and David Brooks.
739Boldwin
      ID: 419402022
      Sun, Oct 26, 2008, 17:57
Eye Trick
740Boldwin
      ID: 2962619
      Tue, Oct 28, 2008, 19:11
Thanks for that 'McCain will win over the moderates and centrists and fill the big tent' advice.

As the people who gave that advice jump ship and endorse Obama. As I predicted.
I wish to reach around and pat myself on the back. Way back during the Republican primaries ... we were told by the Republican Party hierarchy that the only chance the Republican Party had (by the way, we were told this also by some of the intellectualoids in our own conservative media) to win was to attract Democrats and moderates; and that the era of Reagan was over, and we had to somehow find a way to become stewards of a Big Government but smarter that gives money away to the Wal-Mart middle class so that they, too, will feel comfortable with us and like us and vote for us.

In that sense, it was said the only opportunity this party has to regain power is John McCain. Only John McCain can get moderates and independents and Democrats to join the Republican Party, "and we can't win," these intellectualoids said, "if that didn't happen." Well, the latest moderate Republican to abandon his party is William Weld, the former governor of Massachusetts who today endorsed the Most Merciful Lord Barack Obama. He joins moderate Republican Colin Powell. He joins former Bush press spokesman Scott McClellan. He joins a number of Republicans like Chuck Hagel, Senator from Nebraska ...

Now, I wish to ask all of you influential pseudointellectual conservative media types who have also abandoned McCain and want to go vote for Obama (and you know who you are without my having to mention your name) what happened to your precious theory? What the hell happened to your theory that only John McCain could enlarge this party, that we had to get moderates and independents? How the hell is it that moderate Republicans are fleeing their own party and we are not attracting other moderates and independents?

... When I saw the Weld thing today I smiled and I fired off a note to all my buddies and I said, "Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait! How can this be? How can this be? This is the kind of guy that our candidate was supposed to be attracting, and we were supposed to be getting all these moderates from the Democrat Party," and we will, by the way. We're going to get some rank and file, average American Democrats that are going to vote for McCain. But these hoity-toity bourgeoisie... Well, they're not the bourgeoisie, but... Well, they are in a sense. They're following their own self-interests, so I say fine. They have just admitted that Republican Party "big tent" philosophy didn't work. It was their philosophy; it was their idea. These are the people, once they steered the party to where it is, they are the ones that abandoned it. - Rush Limbaugh
Never again.
741Boldwin
      ID: 2962619
      Tue, Oct 28, 2008, 19:13
SZ

Yup, you are exactly right.
742sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Fri, Oct 31, 2008, 18:56
McCain and his abysmal treatment of Veterans
743biliruben
      Leader
      ID: 589301110
      Thu, Nov 06, 2008, 05:09
I know we should be gracious, but...

744Baldwin
      ID: 201045320
      Thu, Nov 06, 2008, 05:38
"you make a dead man..." - Rolling Stones

Like I said, it's the viagra circuit for you, John.
745Boldwin
      ID: 5311401914
      Thu, Dec 20, 2012, 04:08
NDAA Amendment Designed to Protect Americans from Indefinite Detentions Killed; Rand Paul Blames John McCain

The senate had already passed the amendment to strip that notorious part of the NDAA whereupon McCain killed the reform in conference.

May I never again have to hear a liberal on this board tell me what a great guy McCain is and why aren't more republicans like him?
 If you believe a recent post violates the policy on Civility and Respect,
you may report the abuse via email to moderators@rotoguru1.com 
RotoGuru Politics Forum

View the Forum Registry

XML Get RSS Feed for this thread


Self-edit this thread




Post a reply to this message: The Real John McCain

Name:
Email:
Message:
Click here to create and insert a link
Click here to insert a block of hidden (spoiler) text
Ignore line feeds? no (typical)   yes (for HTML table input)


Viewing statistics for this thread
Period# Views# Users
Last hour11
Last 24 hours33
Last 7 days1711
Last 30 days8221
Since Mar 1, 2007324959301