The righteous left has a conniption fit over the alleged Bush "theocracy." The spiteful criticisms of "right-wing evangelical neocons" have been abundant on these pages. An alleged cross (or you can call it a bookcase) in a Huckabee ad stirred up all kinds of outrage.

You know what, I'm more than a little concerned with the Obamas disturbing comments and the portrayal of Barack "Vogue cover model, Esquire best dressed, best-selling author, Grammy winner, Harvard Law Review editor, master of the laws that govern the universe (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/26/AR2007012600970.html)" Obama - the man who "sends a thrill up" Chris Matthews' leg - as some kind of savior. No?

Reuters has a nice photo of Michelle the Madonna (http://www.reuters.com/news/pictures/searchpopup?picId=3052185), Newsweek changed their cover photo of Obama at the last minute this week to a more saintly image (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_052908/content/01125107.Par.57162.ImageFile.jpg) (reportedly at the behest of the editor's wife), and this piece of art that was displayed at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago:

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/images/obamahalo.jpg

Surely you've all heard about Michelle's "broken souls" remarks:


That is why I am here, because Barack Obama is the only person in this who understands that. That before we can work on the problems, we have to fix our souls. Our souls are broken in this nation...

To some Obama supporters that was an "amazing speech (http://barackfuture.com/2008/02/04/michelle-obamas-amazing-speech-at-ucla/)," not cause for concern. In his "Wellsleyan" speech on Sunday Obama said, "our individual salvation depends on collective salvation."

I find the remarks and the mania disturbing. It's not the government's role to heal our "broken" souls and my salvation is not dependent on Obama's collectivist gospel. It is government's job to ensure domestic tranquility and provide for the common defense, isn't it? Or at least it was while you were whining about Bush... did that change with Obama?

Not sure what your point is.

Not sure what your point is.

If you try you might even find a question in there.

Oh I see. The answer is no. I believe that they were talking about individuals changing their personal outlook, perhaps moving from a consumerist/materialistic mindthink to getting back to family.

Oh I see. The answer is no. I believe that they were talking about individuals changing their personal outlook, perhaps moving from a consumerist/materialistic mindthink to getting back to family.

Obama was obviously speaking against consumerism and for his collectivist society - while dressed impeccably after eating some expensive arugula from the Whole Foods Market and before returning to his $1.6 million mansion - but the message is for the "salvation of the nation." Michelle's quote in more context:


In 2008, we are still a nation that is too divided. We live in isolation, and because of that isolation, we fear one another. We don't know our neighbors, we don't talk, we believe our pain is our own. We don't realize that the struggles and challenges of all of us are the same. We are too isolated. And we are still a nation that is still too cynical. We look at it as "them" and "they" as opposed to "us". We don't engage because we are still too cynical.. .

Americans are not in debt because they live frivolously but because someone got sick. Even with insurance, the deductibles and the premiums are so high that people are still putting medications and treatments on credit cards. And they can't get out from under. I could go on and on, but this is how we're living, people, in 2008.

And things have gotten progressively worse throughout my lifetime, through Democratic and Republican administrations, it hasn't gotten better for regular folks.. .

We have lost the understanding that in a democracy, we have a mutual obligation to one another -- that we cannot measure the greatness of our society by the strongest and richest of us, but we have to measure our greatness by the least of these. That we have to compromise and sacrifice for one another in order to get things done. That is why I am here, because Barack Obama is the only person in this who understands that. That before we can work on the problems, we have to fix our souls. Our souls are broken in this nation.

To her, he is obviously the "savior of the nation" and only Obama understands the problems and the need to fix our broken souls in order to "heal" the country.

Speech thanks for that Washington post article That made me have even more respect for Senator Obama!! I knew you were a closet Obama supporter!!

I agree with Spit. I like and agree the content of that quote.

I'm more than a little concerned

....

I find the remarks and the mania disturbing.
I know how hard this must be for you. Perhaps talk therapy would help.

She needs to be speaking from the pulpit at the wonderful "Church" they have attended proudly, for over 20 years now.

What she said is far better than ANYTHING else I've heard shouted from that "so called" Church Pulpit.

Does someone, anyone, have audio of ANYTHING from that Pulpit that is not racially dividing, openly anti white and/or anti Jew?

I thought Rev. Wright was bad enough, now I've heard the Rev. Moss's comments as well as those of the visiting Catholic Priest, and both were truly disgusting to say the least.

No wonder this country still has so many problems between the races. It is bad enough for a young person, having to deal with the prejudices of their parents or grandparents but to hear this crap, where they go to Church, to learn about God, and loving thy neighbor, and about salvation is disgraceful to say the least.

Yet, no major TV news media, besides FOX, will even report this stuff.

You do? In case anyone missed the quote:


Obama analyzed and integrated Einstein's theory of relativity, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, as well as the concept of curved space as an alternative to gravity, for a Law Review article that Tribe wrote titled, "The Curvature of Constitutional Space."

Perhaps the author should have consulted Obama, the concept of curved space is covered in Einstein's theory of relativity.

When I'm not being concerned about this sudden switch by the left to being in favor of a spiritual Messiah for president, I'm laughing at how they now approve of government being in the business of salvation and soul fixing... while protesting Intelligent Design in schools, the 10 commandments on government property and faith based initiatives. You guy's standards are awfully confusing...

Got to keep peeling the onion. For every hosanna we hear about his new age campaign we get reminders of the places he can't disown .

YouTube - Obama's Church: Why Hillary Cried - Father Michael Pfleger (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_H11x6bMu4Y)

By the way he preemptively threw this priest ;who he had also identified as a spiritual mentor ,under the bus . More road kill !

She needs to be speaking from the pulpit at the wonderful "Church" they have attended proudly, for over 20 years now.

What she said is far better than ANYTHING else I've heard shouted from that "so called" Church Pulpit.


Rumor has it that there is indeed a video of her ranting against Whitey from the pulpit. Purportedly it is being held back for the October Surprise.

When I'm not being concerned about this sudden switch by the left to being in favor of a spiritual Messiah for president.No one is calling him a 'spiritual Messiah' - just you and your mudracking.

MotherJones Blog: Barack Obama's Messiah Complex (http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/02/7209_barack_obamas_m.html)

Farrakhan Praises Obama as 'Hope of Entire World' - America's Election HQ (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/02/25/farrakhan-praises-obama-as-hope-of-entire-world/)

Under God: Is Obama a (or the) Messiah? - On Faith at washingtonpost.com (http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/undergod/2008/02/obama_the_messiah.html)

Me I think he's more like PT Barnum.

Oh I see. Well those opinion pieces must be correct - he is the second coming of christ, we're all saved! It's a win-win!

No one is calling him a 'spiritual Messiah' - just you and your mudracking.

You're a riot, NK. I'm not sure what mudracking is, but after 7 1/2 years of nonstop hatred toward Bush and all things Republican I'm having a blast watching the Dems out "mud rake" each other.

I know how hard this must be for you. Perhaps talk therapy would help.

Very nice OG, but my need for therapy is far, far, far, far, far less over Obamamania than the poor, deluded broken souls suffering from BDS. :D

Oh I see. Well those opinion pieces must be correct - he is the second coming of christ, we're all saved! It's a win-win!

Your post was practically correct, you just omitted the needed "anti" immediately following
The word of, and connected to the word christ.

He's much closer the description of that entity, than he is to Christ.

Me I think he's more like PT Barnum.

I see a lot of Jonas Nightingale (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0104695/) in him.

Your post was practically correct, you just omitted the needed "anti" immediately following
the word of, and connected to the word christ.

He's much closer the the description of that entity, than he is to Christ.So there are people waging genocide in this world, serial killers wearing their victims' skin for kicks and you believe that Barack Obama is the anti-christ as professed in the bible? What leads you to believe this?

So there are people waging genocide in this world, serial killers wearing their victims' skin for kicks and you believe that Barack Obama is the anti-christ as professed in the bible? What leads you to believe this?

What I said was that he comes much closer to fitting the description of that entity, than he does to fitting the descriptions of Christ.

I myself don't believe he is ether one.

I believe he is a politician, who gained his popularity by being a member of the radical black community. While he climbed his political ladder, using these associates, and his separatist church as tools to gain notability in the radical black community. It worked very well for him.

Now though, in his quest to climb to the very top, he can no longer appeal only to his black separatist base, he has to try to appeal to the entire Country, and this is where all his problems come to light.

Who is saying he is christ or comes close to him anyway? That's just nonsense.

He seems to appeal to a great deal of people. We'll see come election I guess.

I think it is so funny that the only thing that people have against Obama is what his rev said. White people get so threatened when a black person speaks the truth. It's so sad that the only argument you have against Obama are the words of someone who is NOT Obama. But he sat in that church for 20 years.

I have listened to my grand parents say some of the most racist things for 30 years and by your logic I should be the most racist person on this earth. And much to my grandparents dismay I have a lot of black friends (best friend since I was 4 is black). I love my grandparents and respect them more then Obama does his Rev. so if I can separate good teachings from bad what makes you think Obama can not?

I think he is very good at separating things... and people.

If he so disagreed with this stuff, why did he stay there for over 20 years?

Churches are not like grandparents, you get to pick your church.

The fact that he picked this one speaks volumes about his personal convictions.

As I said, the young dealing with ignorant grandparents, or even parents, should be enough of a challenge for them. Obama's children have listened to these racial rants ALL of their lives, and he and his wife have allowed it to happen.

They don't even see anything wrong with belonging to this so called Church.

It may not be a problem for you, or his supporters, but I do believe it is, and will be, a problem for the rest of our Nation.

Progunr if Obama gets elected what do you think he will do to the nation? Everyone I talk to says he will be bad for the nation but no one will tell me why. So please tell me what the anti-christ is going to do to this nation?

What I believe he would do is move this nation ever so closer to the socialistic values he believes in.

He will tax us into a real depression, he will grow the government, expand entitlements and government programs, attempt to socialize our heath system, he will attempt to negotiate and appease the terrorist leaders, and those are just the obvious things he has expressed himself.

What he has said is bad enough, what may be on his mind, that has not been said, is even more frightening.

Progunr I respect that answer most people just say "i don't like him" and that's all I get. If a socialized health care system bring Americans health care I am for it. I can understand why people wouldn't want the leader of America to sit and try to talk to terrorist leaders but has not talking to them worked? Now I am not gullible so I really don't think trying to reason with a terrorist is going to work but nothing else has worked so far.

I think there should be more government programs to help families out. I don't have any kids but if I did it's not like my fiancée or I could stay home with the kid we would have to put out more then $200.00 a week for day care so we could both work and try to live some what comfortably. If we can spend BILLIONS on a war for oil then surely we could have put someone money into helping out American families to get ahead.

Are you really for socialized health care?

Are you THAT impressed with the way our government manages things?

Do you really trust the government to pick your doctor, and decide if your illness is worth spending money on, or that it is more cost effective to just let you die?

What gives you the idea that it is my responsibility to donate to helping you have and raise your children?

It is that mindset that is destroying our country. If the government did not take care of all the people who can't afford to have and raise children, then we would not have so many people having them, when they can't afford it.

Having and raising children should not be a right, guaranteed to you by my tax dollars but thanks to our Government, it is now.

Having and raising children is a responsibility, that you should be personally responsible for. The socialistic view that the government exists to take care of everyone is just wrong, in my opinion of course.

While I do agree, we waste far too much money on foreign lands and problems, that should be devoted to our own nation, that again is a problem with our government and the idea that we are responsible for everyone, and no one is responsible for themselves.

Finally, it is not the governments responsibility to help you get ahead, it is yours. The socialistic policies that have crept into our nation have all but eliminated any personal responsibility. The number of people who actually believe that it is the job of the government to provide for them everything they want or need is disturbing and will eventually lead to the downfall of our nation if we don't put a stop to it.

There you have my conservative view.

I do not intend to convince you, just to perhaps enlighten you.

I think it is so funny that the only thing that people have against Obama is what his rev said. White people get so threatened when a black person speaks the truth. It's so sad that the only argument you have against Obama are the words of someone who is NOT Obama. But he sat in that church for 20 years.

I guess you haven't been paying attention, we've brought out many concerns that have nothing to do with his pastor - his record, his association with unrepentant terrorists and other criminals, his outrageous comments, his thin skin, his inexperience and on and on. His "mentor" Wright was a bonus.

Who is saying he is christ or comes close to him anyway? That's just nonsense.

He seems to appeal to a great deal of people. We'll see come election I guess.

Who? If they haven't called him that they've described him as such. I've already pointed out his wife has said he is "the only one" who understands our problems and our broken souls. Andrew Sullivan paints a shamanistic portrait (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200712/obama) of the man:


At its best, the Obama candidacy is about ending a war—not so much the war in Iraq, which now has a mo­mentum that will propel the occupation into the next decade—but the war within America that has prevailed since Vietnam and that shows dangerous signs of intensifying, a nonviolent civil war that has crippled America at the very time the world needs it most. It is a war about war—and about culture and about religion and about race. And in that war, Obama—and Obama alone—offers the possibility of a truce.

David Ehrenstein describes him as the 'Magic Negro' (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-ehrenstein19mar19,0,5335087.story?coll=la-opinion-center):


But the same can't be said of most white Americans, whose desire for a noble, healing Negro hasn't faded. That's where Obama comes in... Like a comic-book superhero, Obama is there to help, out of the sheer goodness of a heart we need not know or understand. For as with all Magic Negroes, the less real he seems, the more desirable he becomes. If he were real, white America couldn't project all its fantasies of curative black benevolence on him."

Obama is better than civil rights (http://www.slate.com/id/2159871/):


[I]t is beyond debate that an Obama win in 2008 would be by far the best thing that has happened to African-Americans, and to race relations, in more than 50 years.

Walter Shapiro at Salon.com reports that "Paul Tewes, Obama's Iowa coordinator, marveled, "It is something I've never seen before in politics. After people hear him speak, they say that they feel at peace (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/09/07/obama/)."

People are swooning all over the man (and that doesn't even include his fainters in the audience):

“He walks into a room and you want to follow him somewhere, anywhere.” —actor George Clooney

“I’ll do whatever he says to do. I’ll collect paper cups off the ground to make his pathway clear.” —actress Halle Berry

“This young man is the hope of the entire world that America will change and be made better. This young man is capturing audiences of black and brown and red and yellow. If you look at Barack Obama’s audiences and look at the effect of his words, those people are being transformed… A black man with a white mother became a savior to us. A black man with a white mother could turn out to be one who can lift America from her fall.” —Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan

And the kicker that would have had a Republican, any Republican, laughed out of the country or hung from the highest tree, by Rep. Bobby Rush, D-Ill as reported in the NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/09/us/politics/09obama.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin):


"I would characterize the Senate race as being a race where Obama was, let's say, blessed and highly favored," Mr. Rush said, chuckling. "That's not routine.

There's something else going on."

What was he suggesting?

"I think that Obama, his election to the Senate, was divinely ordered," Mr. Rush said, all other explanations failing. "I'm a preacher and a pastor; I know that that was God's plan. Obama has certain qualities that—I think he is being used for some purpose. I really believe that."

Not to mention, he sends a thrill up Chris Matthews' leg. I told you I come prepared.

Speech,

I agree with you. And speaking of secular messiah do you see how people gobble him and his so called charismatic speeches up? Wait till someone comes on the scene with some "power" behind the dazzling words. And the WHOLE world will be in awe of him. This is but a glimpse of what is to come. ( sorry didn't mean to change the thread topic.. just my thoughts.)

Speech,

I agree with you. and speaking of secular messiah do you see how people gobble him and his so called charasmatic speeches up? Wait till someone comes on the scene with some "power" behind the dazzling words. and the WHOLE world will be in awe of him. This is but a glimpse of what is to come. ( sorry didn't mean to change the thread topic..just my thoughts.)

We change the subject all the time so you fit right in :) Actually though it fits right in with the subject, the 'Messiah' is much more of an empty suit than his worshipers realize.

and speaking of secular messiah do you see how people gobble him and his so called charasmatic speeches up?

I saw that gig twice already as voted by the Bible Belt states. His name? George Walker Bush.


We change the subject all the time so you fit right in :) Actually though it fits right in with the subject, the 'Messiah' is much more of an empty suit than his worshipers realize.

Steve, stop capitalizing the word "messiah" in posts that you actually mean to vilify Obama. I doubt seriously that Obama's any more anointed than other candidates, past or present. There's a Jewish proverb, "When the Moshiach comes, all the sick will be healed; only a fool stays a fool."

I saw that gig twice already. His name, George Walker Bush.

Wow Bobby, you think GW gives charismatic speeches? Wonders never cease :D

Wow Bobby, you think GW gives charismatic speeches? Wonders never cease :D

Oh! No! I didn't say I thought he was a good communicator, I'm implying that Republicans fell in love with him. And it's bitter and bad when the public is wrong. :)

Progunr I respect that answer most people just say "i don't like him" and thats all i get. If a socialized health care system bring Americans health care i am for it. I can understand why people wouldn't want the leader of America to sit and try to talk to terrorist leaders but has not talking to them worked? Now I am not gullible so I really don't think trying to reason with a terrorist is going to work but nothing else has worked so far.

I think there should be more government programs to help families out. I don't have any kids but if I did it's not like my fiancee or I could stay home with the kid we would have to put out more then $200.00 a week for day care so we could both work and try to live some what comfortably. If we can spend BILLIONS on a war for oil then surely we could have put someone money into helping out American families to get ahead.


Yup, Obama's universal healthcare is a good thing... NOT


Angry Illinois veterans sneer at VA `snow job' | U.S. Senator Barack Obama (http://obama.senate.gov/news/050523-angry_illinois_veterans_sneer_/)


"Durbin noted that veterans have long felt betrayed by the VA--and they have heard promises of reform before. But he said that both senators would be aggressive in making sure the VA follows through. He noted that Obama holds a seat on the Senate's Veterans' Affairs Committee and Durbin on the powerful Appropriations Committee"



Durbin, Obama want VA to explain deaths at Marion hospital - Boston.com (http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2007/09/24/durbin_obama_want_va_to_explain_deaths_at_marion_h ospital/)

"The most recent revelation that (Veterans Affairs Medical Center) employed a surgeon who had been barred from practicing in another state casts doubt on the adequacy of the VA's system of credentialing and quality control," the letter said"


Maybe if the Democrats allow the taxpayor to keep more of their hard earned money, rather than raising tax rates, they could afford health insurance or put that money into a health savings account.



And this war for oil thing, maybe if the Democratic congress allows us to drill for our own oil, or use more nuclear energy, maybe Middle east oil would not be a national security matter.

The fact that you just used a Wayne's World line makes anything you have to say to me worthless.

Everyone I talk to says he will be bad for the nation but no one will tell me why.

Along with the points othrs have made to this question ;even if I agreed with his positions I would havesecond thoughts about supporting anyone who's total experience consists of a few years in the Ill . Legislature and Senate ;and a cup of coffee in the US Senate. Don't forget ;he began running for the Presidency almost the day he began his gig in the US Senate and has spent little time there after his orientation.

Right now John McCain is seriously considering an up and coming rising star in the Republican party for Veep;Bobby Jindal ,Governor of Louisiana. I would advise him to turn it down if offered because he has not been around long enough to demonstate an ability to do the job. I would like first to see his reforms in the State come to fruation before he moves on .

That is the problem with Obama. He never sticks around to build a record worthy of pointing to . Perhaps that is why people look elsewhere to get a measure of the man.

The fact that you just used a Wayne's World line makes anything you have to say to me worthless.

Spit, I have no idea what you're referring to.

The fact that you just used a Wayne's World line makes anything you have to say to me worthless.


Not :D

Okay stick your head in the sand, and forget the actual links. That is the problem with Obama, all talk, and an eloquent talker at that. For a lot of people that is enough to convince them, but for the presidency you have to look past all the empty feel good rhetoric and examine and consider the details.


Change of Subject - Observations, reports, tips, referrals and tirades | Chicago Tribune | Blog (http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2007/12/disparagement-o.html)


If "present" sounds wimpy, that's because it sometimes is. In many cases, according to Paul Green, head of Roosevelt University's School of Public Policy and a longtime student of Illinois' byzantine legislative process, lawmakers who anticipate a tough re-election challenge will vote "present" on a controversial bill they oppose so as not to give their prospective opponents a good club to bash them with.

Obama, however, was in a safe district and never faced a serious challenge for his legislative seat. [****He had no need to shy from hard-line stands on gun control and abortion rights.******] He actually took such stands frequently and is now highly praised by advocates for both causes.

Why would he then vote "present" instead of a resounding "no" on certain bills advanced by lawmakers opposed to abortion rights?


*****--- because Obama had his eye at the presidency from the beginning and knows that his hard line left wing ideology might play well in Chicago, but not among moderates and independents.

Okay stick your head in the sand, and forget the actual links. That is the problem with Obama, all talk, and an eloquent talker at that. For alot of people that is enough to convince them, but for the presidency you have to look past all the empty feel good rhetoric and examine and consider the details.


Hillary tried and failed. In fact she went 0 for 20 in primary debates. McCain will be given every opportunity in the general election debates to expose the "empty rhetoric" proclaimed by his supporters and use it for prosecution. Let's see how well that works out for your spokesman after cross examination being face to face with Obama. :rolleyes:

Actually, I wish it were an unscripted head to head townhall kind of debate in which the candidates can't just whip out their talking points.

We really need both candidates to hammer out their points. The network moderators will receive pitches from both campaigns, usually a compromise, and have various debate formats to satisfy both candidates. This might give McCain an opportunity to prove he's not just another Bush clone. Although that's going to be a hard sale no matter what the format.

We really need both candidates to hammer out their points. The network moderators will receive pitches from both campaigns, usually a compromise, and have various debate formats to satisfy both candidates. This might give McCain an opportunity to prove he's not just another Bush clone. Although that's going to be a hard sale no matter what the format.

Bobby, you're starting to sound like Howard Dean. Should we expect a scream soon? What makes it a harder sale for McCain is the media has done a 180 on their former favorite. I heard one of the many "Democratic strategists" that seem to pop up out of nowhere this morning try to explain that McCain, not Obama, was still the media favorite. LOL!

We know that is not the fact . The NY slimes turned on him as soon as he became the nominee.

Bobby, you're starting to sound like Howard Dean. Should we expect a scream soon? What makes it a harder sale for McCain is the media has done a 180 on their former favorite. I heard one of the many "Democratic strategists" that seem to pop up out of nowhere this morning try to explain that McCain, not Obama, was still the media favorite. LOL!


Huh?? What the hell did I miss? Howard Dean spoke recently on which possible general election debate platforms that are to be used? The same Howard Dean that I chastised for letting the Clinton primary circus continue far so long? BTW I've been shouting at George Walker Bush for two terms now. That also has nothing to do with the media and everything to do with Dubya. ;)

What did you miss?


his might give McCain an opportunity to prove he's not just another Bush clone.

Howard the Deaniac and McMahon were spreading that nonsense long before Obama - or you - adopted that talking point... I get their emails :D

Come on, you're more original than that my friend.

Howard the Deaniac and McMahon were spreading that nonsense long before Obama - or you - adopted that talking point...I get their emails :D

Come on, you're more original than that my friend.

1) So? I don't receive Howard Dean emails.

2) If that's what H. Dean implied, before my own original thoughts on the issue, then I give him credit.

3) When two people come to the same conclusion, arbitrarily, perhaps there is substance.


:cool:

1) So?! I don't receive Howard Dean emails.

2) If that's what H. Dean implied, before my own original thoughts on the issue, then I give him credit.

3) When two people come to the same conclusion, arbitrarily, perhaps there is substance.

Or, since I've been mentioning it since early February (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/politics/who-has-better-chance-winning-181719.html#post870607) and Obama has made it his favorite point (besides uhhh), the "conclusion" was an unconscious selection ;)

Or, since I've been mentioning it since early February (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/politics/who-has-better-chance-winning-181719.html#post870607) and Obama has made it his favorite point (besides uhhh), the "conclusion" was an unconscious selection ;)



I suggest you supplement with vitamins regularly. Did you really think that Howard Dean and I are the only two people on the planet that sees minute differences between Dubya and McSame. Like I said, come general election debate time, McCain will get a chance to prove otherwise. :rolleyes:

I suggest you supplement with vitamins regularly.

A Corona with lime is more fun... and tastier.


Did you really think that Howard Dean and I are the only two people on the planet that sees minute differences between Dubya and McSame. Like I said, come general election debate time, McCain will get a chance to prove otherwise. :rolleyes:

Since it's been splashed across every newspaper in the country and repeated on every news channel for months by every Democrat talking head, it's easy to see it's the "company line." :rolleyes:

Since it's been splashed across every newspaper in the country and repeated on every news channel for months by every Democrat talking head, it's easy to see it's the "company line."It's not the company line, it's the truth:

John McSame - Progressive Media USA (http://www.progressivemediausa.org/2008/05/27/john-mcsame/)

Senator John McCain has voted with President Bush 100% of the time in 2008 and 95% of the time in 2007

It's not the company line, it's the truth:

Senator John McCain has voted with President Bush 100% of the time in 2008 and 95% of the time in 2007

About 4 minutes worth of research reveals McCain voted AGAINST the party (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/m000303/votes/against-party/) 391 times since Bush has been in office. I told you, I come prepared.

Since it's been splashed across every newspaper in the country and repeated on every news channel for months by every Democrat talking head, it's easy to see it's the "company line." :rolleyes:


And I've got news for you! The "company" has known since day one of Dubya's second term, and it wasn't even a coordinated effort. :)

About 4 minutes worth of research reveals McCain voted AGAINST the party (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/m000303/votes/against-party/) 391 times since Bush has been in office. I told you, I come prepared.I wasn't referring to the party, I was referring to his loyalty to Bush. And frankly some of the things he has voted against is quite apppaling.

I wasn't referring to the party, I was referring to his loyalty to Bush. And frankly some of the things he has voted against is quite apppaling.

It's funny how the media has portrayed McCain as a "maverick" for all these years, he's voted against his party (whose top figure is the President) 391 times since Bush has been president - and now you guys are painting him as an EXTREME Bush loyalist based on this year and last when he's missed most of the votes. LOL, that's a very weak argument.

And I've got news for you! The "company" has known since day one of Dubya's second term, and it wasn't even a coordinated effort. :)

I don't see how that's relevant since the "company line" is a "third Bush term," and it only surfaced when it became clear McCain would be the nominee. ;)

I don't see how that's relevant since the "company line" is a "third Bush term," and it only surfaced when it became clear McCain would be the nominee. ;)

I'll help you "Steve." A president in the US can only run for two terms; Civics 101. The Republican party, unless they decided not to run a candidate for president in 2008 (did you think they would not?? ), would have to champion another clone. They did. His name turned out to be "John McCain." Oh! It could had been Mitt RomGeorge, or Mike HuckaBush, or Fred ThompWalker, or even Rudy Dubyani. Not much separates their views either. The only Republican to choose from with any major differences from George Walker Bush would had been Ron Paul. But Paul was ostracized by the other candidates. He wasn't part of the good'ol boy clone club.;)!;)!;)!

Or in 08 it could be Barack "Jimmy Carter" Obama


Even TIME notes the similarities;




Of the two likely nominees this year, Obama is closest to Carter in background and policy leanings. The parallels between his campaign so far and the one Carter ran in 1976 are striking. Like Carter, Obama had little national experience when he started to run. Neither was given much chance of winning the nomination. Instead of running on a detailed platform, Carter told crowds that what Washington needed was "a government as good as its people"—just as Obama promises "change we can believe in." Carter's message sold well after Richard Nixon's disgrace, and press accounts from the time suggest that people found the born-again Carter to be charismatic. That parallel is a promising one for Obama.

Or in 08 it could be Barack "Jimmy Carter" Obama


even TIME notes the similarities;

Barack Carter the humanitarian vs. McSame Iraqi war? Carter was weak on economics with the double digit inflation, but our nation currently is suffering under Dubya. McCain will just keep up his policies, perhaps worse. McCain even admits he's weak on economics. Give me Jimmy and the Billy Beer, every time!

I wish McCain would give President Bush some credit. He is running as if he invented the Surge .Here was part of his ill-timed address last night:

I disagreed strongly with the Bush administration's mismanagement of the war in Iraq . I called for the change in strategy that is now, at last, succeeding where the previous strategy had failed miserably. I was criticized for doing so by Republicans. I was criticized by Democrats. I was criticized by the press. But I don't answer to them. I answer to you. And I would be ashamed to admit I knew what had to be done in Iraq to spare us from a defeat that would endanger us for years, but I kept quiet because it was too politically hard for me to do. No ambition is more important to me than the security of the country I have defended all my adult life.

Nonsense. It was President Bush who risked all by defying conventional wisdom in the form of the Baker Iraq Surrender Report ;and adopted a plan drawn up by General Petraeus... not McCain. I'll give McCain credit for getting on board ,and for calling for more troops . But the plan adopted was not McCain's .

I'll help you "Steve." A president in the US can only run for two terms; Civics 101.

Um, duh.


The Republican party, unless they decided not to run a candidate for president in 2008 (did you think they would not?? ), would have to champion another clone. They did. His name turned out to be "John McCain."

LOL, as I pointed out to NK, McCain voted AGAINST Bush's "rubber-stamp Republicans (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Rubber-stamp_Congress)" 391 times during Bush's tenure. That's an average of about 52 times per year. Some "clone."

Um, duh."


I over simplified, since you asked. :rolleyes:



LOL, as I pointed out to NK, McCain voted AGAINST Bush's "rubber-stamp Republicans (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Rubber-stamp_Congress)" 391 times during Bush's tenure. That's an average of about 52 times per year. Some "clone."

Reality check time, "Steve."

McCain Voted With Bush 100 Percent Of The Time In 2008 - Politics on The Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/27/mccain-voted-with-bush-10_n_103718.html)

John McSame

May 27, 2008 12:55 pm posted by Jason Rosenbaum

CQ's Presidential Support studies try to determine how often a legislator votes in line with the President's position:

CQ tries to determine what the president personally, as distinct from other administration officials, does and does not want in the way of legislative action. This is done by analyzing his messages to Congress, news conference remarks and other public statements and documents.

So, these studies only track votes when the President has an explicit, stated opinion on a bill.

According to CQ, Senator John McCain has voted with President Bush 100% of the time in 2008 and 95% of the time in 2007:


Presidential Support

Year .....................................Support...... ...Oppose
2008 (through May 15, 2008)......100%..........0%
2007..........................................95%. ..........5%
2006..........................................89%. ........11%
2005..........................................77%. ........23%
2004..........................................92%. ..........8%
2003..........................................91%. ..........9%
2002..........................................90%. .........10%
2001..........................................91%. ..........9%

CQ's Presidential Support numbers do not include votes that legislators miss - in other words, missing a vote on an issue Bush supported did not lower McCain's score. Now, it is a well known fact that Senator McCain misses the most votes in the Senate. In fact, he was crowned the most absent Senator in 2008. Therefore, when John McCain even bothered to show up and vote in the Senate - which wasn't often - he voted with Bush 100% of the time.

John McCain and George Bush believe the same things on virtually every issue - the list of their agreements goes on for pages. But a better judge of a politician's views is not how he talks, but how he votes. John McCain - when it counted and when he showed up in the Senate to do his job in 2008 - never deviated from George Bush's position. Not once. 100%.

It's all there in black and white. John McSame - just like Bush.;)

Bobby,

You forgot to bold this part:

Now, it is a well known fact that Senator McCain misses the most votes in the Senate. In fact, he was crowned the most absent Senator in 2008. Therefore, when John McCain even bothered to show up and vote in the Senate - which wasn't often - he voted with Bush 100% of the time.

Bobby,

You forgot to bold this part:


Thanks. So true!

Please tell me how often this year Sen Obama has held meetings of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's Subcommittee on European Affairs that he chairs .How often as chair of this committee has he visited Europe to confer with the Europeans ( he will talk to the Mahdi Hatter but not our allies ?)?Subcommittee chairmanship represents a significant responsibility;and Obama has been a no-show. The role of NATO in Afghanistan and Iraq ;European energy policy and European responses to climate change,our role in NATO are all part of his perview .But he has been too busy campaigning .
So either both candidates take a hit for attendance or both get a pass. Your choice.

Tom, I hear you. Neither get a pass. But one of the candidates vote most often the same as Dubya, and it's not Barack Obama.

McCain Voted With Bush 100 Percent Of The Time In 2008 - Politics on The Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/27/mccain-voted-with-bush-10_n_103718.html)

I've already refuted NK's rehashed argument (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/secular-messiah-221429-6.html#post1073980). Out of 141 votes this year he's missed 105, and so that's an accurate gauge of his votes along Bush's line? LOL! You guys want it both ways, you wanted to applaud him for being a maverick for working across party lines and bucking his party - averaging 52 votes per year against the GOP - so much so that he reportedly contemplated switching parties at least twice, and now you want to paint him as a Bush clone. All the while mocking us for not being thrilled with McCain for those very reasons. Unbelievable.

You guys want it both ways, you wanted to applaud him for being a maverick for working across party lines and bucking his party - I never said he was a maveirck, I never said he attempts to work across party lines - he's a puppet of the neocons.

Tom, I hear you. Neither get a pass. But one of the candidates vote most often the same as Dubya, and it's not Barack Obama.

For I believe the 5th time I've said this now, that's not true. I've furnished the links, look it up and don't rely on spin like NK.

I'm not spinning - I've provided my facts fella. When Johnny-boy voted against his fellow repubs it's most likely 'cause his little buddy George did too. But when George voted "Yay" so did Johnny "THE MAVERICK" McCain.

Hehe, the irony of you telling me that I "spin" stuff. Harhar - that's your job here!

I'm not spinning - I've provided my facts fella. When Johnny-boy voted against his fellow repubs it's most likely 'cause his little buddy George did too. But when George voted "Yay" so did Johnny "THE MAVERICK" McCain.

"Most likely" is not a fact, NK. An accurate way to put it is McCain voted with the president a majority of the time - as did most Republicans. If it's supposed to be earth-shattering news that Republicans voted with their Republican president a majority of the time then you need to get out more. But to choose this year and last - when McCain (along with Clinton and Obama) missed so many votes while campaigning as "factual evidence" that he is a Bush Clone is spin. The first comment on the post you cited (http://www.progressivemediausa.org/2008/05/27/john-mcsame/) is right, it's "a stupid, misleading statistic."


Hehe, the irony of you telling me that I "spin" stuff. Harhar - that's your job here!

I'll put my facts up against your spin any day.

I never said he was a maveirck, I never said he attempts to work across party lines - he's a puppet of the neocons.

"You guys" is referring to the left and the media in general. As recently as January the NY Times was calling him just that.


Is John McCain, the maverick flyboy (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/28/us/politics/28repubs.html?_r=1&oref=slogin) of the Republican Party, becoming the candidate of the Republican establishment?

Mr. McCain, who has delighted in sticking his thumb in the eye of mainstream Republicans throughout his political career, is now accumulating a base of support among party regulars who see him as the strongest general election candidate in the remaining Republican field.

But hey, the left and the media can always tear down what they built up right?

For I believe the 5th time I've said this now, that's not true. I've furnished the links, look it up and don't rely on spin like NK.

Year after year, McCain has voted same as Dubya, a high percentage part of the time. That's a fact. NK is from Canada and although I agree with HIS understanding of this election, please don't trying using her as an excuse. People in Canada are just as smart, have computers, speak English (and French), and can make up their own minds, as well as Americans. I see nothing HE opinionated that so outrageous that Americans haven't expressed one time or another.

"You guys" is referring to the left and the media in general. As recently as January the NY Times was calling him just that.
Please, I'm an individual, not "the left" or the media. Try to treat people as individuals. I'm not a "you guys" since I'm quite moderate.

NK is from Canada and although I agree with her understanding ...Um... he.

Just a redneck bit of opinion about McCain being a Bush clone. You ain't going to get many people who supported Bush to believe that for a New York minute!!

Um...he.

HE. Yes "HE" indeed. My bad. I corrected it. Thank you, sir.

Please, I'm an individual, not "the left" or the media. Try to treat people as individuals. I'm not a "you guys" since I'm quite moderate.

And at the time I was responding to Bobby, not you. See that little "originally posted by BABRAM" thing up there? Besides, I'm a Texan, "you guys" is everyday parlance.

Just a redneck bit of opinion about McCain being a Bush clone. You ain't gonna get many people who supported Bush to believe that for a New York minute!!!

I don't think either, George W. Bush or John McCain are conservative enough for their constituents, but fact is McCain has voted same as Dubya, a high percentage part of the time.

According to CQ, Senator John McCain has voted with President Bush 100% of the time in 2008 and 95% of the time in 2007:

Presidential Support

Year... Support... Oppose
2008 (through May 15, 2008)... 100%... 0%
2007... 95%.. . 5%
2006... 89%.. . 11%
2005... 77%.. . 23%
2004... 92%.. . 8%
2003... 91%.. . 9%
2002... 90%.. . 10%
2001... 91%.. . 9%