WE Blog

I never thought I would say this as a republican, but… Obama is definitely the way to vote, now that Hilary is gone. I got a kick out of McCain’s attempt to get the female vote by saying “yeah, Hilary is great and I admire her for doing what she did.. blah blah blah”. McCain is a crazy control freak. The public can see through that line of bull. I wonder if Hiliary is in the running for the VP ticket? It seemed like Al Gore might be , considering how he was promoting Obama the other day.

Good morning Steven!

Yep, poor ol’ McCain. Hillary is going to have her hands full undermining Obama’a campaign without looking like a spoiler.

I have faith in her though!

(You really do need to do a bone dig, Steven. McCain isn’t my man)

Women have always had better ways of solving problems than fighting. From the times of circling around the playground fight we haven’t been impressed. This war candidate will not appeal to women.

He didn’t stand by the woman who stood by her man.

He calls the new trophy wife a c**t in public and we know there is worse in private.

He is most energetic when he is running from one deeply-held conviction to the opposing view. Other than that seems doddering (mentally and physically).

His comb over tells us he isn’t comfortable in his own skin.

Nope, there is nothing personally or professionally appealing about McCain.

“Fall for anything”, Mawg. But I get your point.

“Jed” alleges –

“The whole crop of republican candidates were scraped off the bottom of their barrel.”

Really?

Who else is in the barrel?

Who was at the top of the barrel who stayed out of the race?

Who is is the future of the Republic Party?

Bobby (The Exorcist) Jindal?

Mitt (I lied about my age on MySpace) Romney?
(He’s 62, not 61 was claimed.

Sorry, “Jed.” This year’s Republic Party candidates weren’t the bottom of the barrel. They were the barrel.

I suppose it doesn’t help that McCain has a fundraiser with Clayton Williams who insisted women just lie back and enjoy being raped.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/06/democrats_hit_m_1.html

I accept that it was one coment almost 20 years ago.

A comment by someone other than McCain.

IOKIYAR.

And, McCain keeps the money and plans to reschedule the fund-raising event when no one is paying attention.

When reasonable people know Reverend Wright didn’t say the same lines for 20 years, that Obama wasn’t in the audience every Sunday for 20 years (he worked elsewhere for most of those years!), that the lines that got repeated were taken out of context and the meanings changed in doing that — the Republicans scream overandover how this makes Obama complicit in those misrepresentations. But everything said by those McCain seeks out can’t in any way be tied to him. Poor old fool didn’t know, it was once, it was a long time ago, it wasn’t McCain who said it…

Yeah, right! The right isn’t right this time and Americans see through the excuses and lies.

No. But you can continue as long as you choose making my words whatever you need them to be. It doesn’t make any difference. People here can read. And understand and reason.

We’ve been down this path, Hank. After you ask all your silly questions without accepting answers for more than encouragement to ask more silly endless questions, and make all your unmerited accusations and finally deem that I am “unresponsive,” the facts haven’t changed. It simply isn’t enough any longer to paint others as less because they don’t agree with you. I don’t owe you answers. I have answers, I am as intelligent and as informed as you whether you accept that or not. I don’t do futility with you just because you’re better at social skills than your son.

I have one vote. I am looking forward to casting it FOR Obama. He is change I believe in!

Diversion huh? Monkeyhawk, you pompous windbag. (I keep saying that - fits you like a glove though)

The absurdity is that you, a true political tool who has little regard for the truth, would accuse someone of lying, with no cause. If you were halfway intelligent, when you read in one of your stupid left wing websites that Romney lied because he is really 62 and his “My Space” page says 61, you would think, “no one would lie about their age one year”. Or it could be that it was posted when he was 61 and not updated when he turned 62. But no, you , the true non thinking mouthpiece just parrots it. And the funny thing is that you think it is significant!

Unbelievable.

Monkeyhawk,

While I admit that my experience with MySpace is very limited, I’m curious to know if Romney’s age was stated in text or if it was posted in the sidebar profile. Why? Because it could be that if in the profile, he really was 61 at the time the page was created. If memory serves me, the program automatically figures the age when birthdate is plugged in.

Hank, dear,

Are you saying that Obama and Dubya are political twins? Whether anything can be changed in this country or not, I consider anyone a change from the current IIC.

“I never thought I would say this as a republican, but… Obama is definitely the way to vote, ”

Told ya.

How is this even a suprise?
Obama has Oprah in his corner.
He’s got more charisma in his pinkie finger than McCain in his entire body.
Reminds me of what Rush Limbaugh used to refer to as “the arousal gap”.

Just for you Linda! The very competant and astute editors evidently missed this column by George Will!

THE LAST WORD - George F. Will

Questions for Obama

Have you told young couples straining to buy their first home that declining prices of houses are a misfortune?

May 5, 2008 Issue

Senator, concerning the criteria by which you will nominate judges, you said: “We need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old.” Such sensitivities might serve an admirable legislator, but what have they to do with judging? Should a judge side with whichever party in a controversy stirs his or her empathy? Is such personalization of the judicial function inimical to the rule of law?

• Voting against the confirmation of Chief Justice John Roberts, you said: Deciding “truly difficult cases” should involve “one’s deepest values, one’s core concerns, one’s broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one’s empathy.” Is that not essentially how Chief Justice Roger Taney decided the Dred Scott case? Should other factors—say, the language of the constitutional or statutory provision at issue—matter?

• You say, “The insurance companies, the drug companies, they’re not going to give up their profits easily when it comes to health care.” Why should they? Who will profit from making those industries unprofitable? When pharmaceutical companies have given up their profits, who will fund pharmaceutical innovations, without which there will be much preventable suffering and death? What other industries should “give up their profits”?

• ExxonMobil’s 2007 profit of $40.6 billion annoys you. Do you know that its profit, relative to its revenue, was smaller than Microsoft’s and many other corporations’? And that reducing ExxonMobil’s profits will injure people who participate in mu-tual funds, index funds and pension funds that own 52 percent of the company?

• You say John McCain is content to “watch [Americans'] home prices decline.” So, government should prop up housing prices generally? How? Why? Were prices ideal before the bubble popped? How does a senator know ideal prices? Have you explained to young couples straining to buy their first house that declining prices are a misfortune?

• Telling young people “don’t go into corporate America,” your wife, Michelle, urged them to become social workers or others in “the helping industry,” not “the moneymaking industry.” Given that the moneymakers pay for 100 percent of American jobs, in both public and private sectors, is it not helpful?

• Michelle, who was born in 1964, says that most Americans’ lives have “gotten progressively worse since I was a little girl.” Since 1960, real per capita income has increased 143 percent, life expectancy has increased by seven years, infant mortality has declined 74 percent, deaths from heart disease have been halved, childhood leukemia has stopped being a death sentence, depression has become a treatable disease, air and water pollution have been drastically reduced, the number of women earning a bachelor’s degree has more than doubled, the rate of homeownership has increased 10.2 percent, the size of the average American home has doubled, the percentage of homes with air conditioning has risen from 12 to 77, the portion of Americans who own shares of stock has quintupled … Has your wife perhaps missed some pertinent developments in this country that she calls “just downright mean”?

• You favor raising the capital gains tax rate to “20 percent or 25 percent.” You say this will not “distort” economic decision making. Your tax returns on your 2007 income of $4.2 million show that you and Michelle own few stocks. Are you sure you understand how investors make decisions?

• During the ABC debate, you acknowledged that when the capital gains rate was dropped first to 20 percent, then to 15 percent, government revenues from the tax increased and they declined in the 1980s when it was increased to 28 percent. Nevertheless, you said you would consider raising the rate “for purposes of fairness.” How does decreasing the government’s financial resources and punishing investors promote fairness? Are you aware that 20 percent of taxpayers reporting capital gains in 2006 had incomes of less than $50,000?

• This November, electorates in four states will vote on essentially this language: “The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education or public contracting.” Three states—California, Washington and Michigan—have enacted such language. You made a radio ad opposing the Michigan initiative. Why? Are those states’ voters racists?

• You denounce President Bush for arrogance toward other nations. Yet you vow to use a metaphorical “hammer” to force revisions of trade agreements unless certain weaker nations adjust their labor, environmental and other domestic policies to suit you. Can you define cognitive dissonance?

• You want “to reduce money in politics.” In February and March you raised $95 million. See prior question.

In the interest of being fair and balanced!

Questions For McCain

You say ’some greedy people’ on Wall Street ‘perhaps need to be punished.’ So, government should treat greed as a crime?

Peripatetic John McCain, the human pinball, continues to carom around the country as his rivals gnaw on each other. Although action, not reflection, is his forte, perhaps he should go to earth somewhere, while the Democrats continue the destruction, and answer some questions, such as:

• You say you are not “ready to go to war with Iran,” but you also say the “one thing worse” than “exercising the military option” is “a nuclear-armed Iran.” Because strenuous diplomacy has not dented Iran’s nuclear ambitions, is not a vote for you a vote for war with Iran?

• You say that although Russia has blocked “everything we have tried to do” through the United Nations, you are confident that a “league of democracies” that “control so much of the world’s economy” can modify the behavior of Iran, which has “a lousy economy.” Does that mean war can be avoided only if France, Germany, Japan and China, which have important commercial relations with Iran, impose severe sanctions, and they break Iran’s nuclear ambitions?

• Your goal in Iraq is “success,” which you define as “the establishment of a generally peaceful, stable, prosperous, democratic state.” Would a “generally” peaceful, stable, prosperous but authoritarian state be unacceptable? Or a mildly prosperous and “generally” stable state but one with simmering violence—which describes a number of nations today, including Iraq? Does the task of making your four adjectives descriptive of Iraq require and therefore justify more years of military involvement in the suppression of groups that are manifestations of sectarianism, criminality and warlordism? What other nations should we police?

• In 1999, during U.S. intervention in the Balkans, you advocated mobilizing infantry and armored divisions to show Serbia’s Slobodan Milosevic that there was “no self-imposed limit to our determination to liberate Kosovo from his tyranny.” You described your policy as “rogue-state rollback” against those who threaten “our strategic interests and political values.” How did Serbia threaten America’s strategic interests? Are America’s political values threatened by any state that does not practice them? If so, how long is your list of nations eligible for “rogue-state rollback”?

• You vow to nominate judges who “take as their sole responsibility the enforcement of laws made by the people’s elected representatives.” Their sole responsibility? Do you oppose judicial review that invalidates laws that pure-hearted representatives of the saintly people have enacted that happen to violate the Constitution? Does your dogmatic deference to popular sovereignty put you at odds with the first Republican president, who nobly insisted that there are some things the majority should not be permitted to do—hence his opposition to allowing popular sovereignty to determine the status of slavery in the territories? Do you also reject Justice Antonin Scalia’s belief that the Constitution’s purpose is “to embed certain rights in such a manner that future generations cannot readily take them away”? Does this explain your enthusiasm for McCain-Feingold’s restrictions on political speech, and your dismissive reference to, “quote, First Amendment rights”? Would you nominate judges who, because they think those are more than “quote … rights,” doubt McCain-Feingold’s constitutionality?

• You say that even if global warming turns out to be no crisis (the World Meteorological Organization says global temperatures have not risen in a decade), even unnecessary measures taken to combat it will be beneficial because “then all we’ve done is give our kids a cleaner world.” But what of the trillions of dollars those measures will cost in direct expenditures and diminished economic growth—hence diminished medical research, cultural investment, etc.? Given that Earth is always warming or cooling, what is its proper temperature, and how do you know?

• You propose a “cap and trade” system to limit the carbon dioxide that many companies can emit. Is not your idea an energy- rationing proposal akin to Bill Clinton’s BTU tax?

• You say “some greedy people” on Wall Street “perhaps need to be punished.” So, government should treat greed as a crime—as punishable? What other departures from virtue deserve punishment? How do you distinguish between greed and the socially useful pursuit of personal gain? Your top 20 contributors include this dozen: Merrill Lynch, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Credit Suisse, Lehman Brothers, Bank of New York Mellon, Morgan Stanley, Wachovia Group, Bridgewater Associates, Blackstone Group and Bear Stearns. Are any contributions from these financial institutions so tainted by greed that you are returning them?

• Having raised $95 million in February and March, Barack Obama is reconsidering whether to rely on taxpayer funding in the general election, which would limit him to spending only $84.1 million. You denounce Obama for this, but your adviser Charles Black says, “We could sit down in July or August and say, ‘Hey, we’re raising a lot of money and maybe we should forgo [taxpayer financing].’ We don’t have enough data.” Really, how does your position differ from Obama’s?

• More than 90 percent of taxpayers refuse to use the $3 checkoff on their tax forms to fund campaigns—even though doing so would not increase their tax bill. Given such annual landslide “votes” against taxpayer funding, why is relying on it more virtuous than Obama’s expected reliance on voluntary contributions from dedicated individuals?

Just wondering.

© 2008

I don’t know about McCain. He seems to be politics as usual to me. I don’t think he can win in November. Racism and ignorance will be the only factor that does not get Obama into the White House.
I will say this for Obama. I believe him to be sincere in his ideals. I do not agree with any of his policies or ideas. But I believe he is sincere in that he believes his ideals are the best direction for the country and he will not waver from them.
Once he is elected and his policies begin to take shape the American people will see first hand the disaster these are to our way of life and we will enter into a long reign of conservative policy, not unlike coming off of the Carter debacle.

He’s got more charisma in his pinkie finger than McCain in his entire body.

Which leads me to wonder…how many Republican presidents in my lifetime (and it’s not a short one!) had charisma? How many Democrats?

Let’s take a poll, just for fun. :)
Here’s the list. Yea or nay on each for charisma. I’ll start.

Harry Truman (D) Not that I recall, but I was a baby
Dwight Eisenhower (R) I liked this man, but no real charisma
John F. Kennendy (D) This is a definite yea.
Lyndon Johnson (D) ::snort::
Richard Nixon (R) ::double snort::
Gerald Ford (R) Only if you like bumbling, stumbling nobodies.
Jimmy Carter (D) Too good to be charismatic.
Ronald Reagan (R) He wished.
George H.W. Bush (R) He has some charm, but no pizzaz
Bill Clinton (D) Oh, yeah, and he could charm the bloomers off any woman. Definite yea.
George W. Bush (R) Can he even spell the word?

In my book, it’s Dems 2, Reps 0. How about the rest of you?

Pre,

With one difference and another need to expand, your responses are better than I could have made! Loved the “snort” and “double snort,” and no other words could have described those two more accurately!

Gerald Ford had some charisma. He was an everybody and I appreciated that. I could kinda imagine him coming home from the office and helping out at home so the little woman wouldn’t be too tired for some action.

Ronald Reagan couldn’t even act charismatic and that was his profession.

Ooooh, now I’m wondering about those who ran but lost. Maybe when I have a few minutes? Or would someone else like to take it from here?

Charisma - Yeah, let’s just vote on charisma.

Right, uh huh…

Such qualifications…

This is just more propaganda for Obama. Women aren’t going to Obama as expected look at this from CQ Politics….http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?parm1=5&docID=news-000002898943

Look at the groups that have been on Fox News lately like PUMAPAC and JustSayNoDeal….

“Not a creative thinker or even a great leader, but a man of integrity.”

Yeah but…

Except for that Warren Commission thing. And that pardoning Nixon thing, etc.

As for Reagan he was great. He ensured the military got one of the largest pay raises seen in history. Since I was serving under him as Commander in Chief I appreciated it very much. I thought he was quite charismatic. I enjoyed his speeches as I di Bill Clinton’s speeches. For the last 8 years I either changed the channel or muted Bush much as I do for Obama. I drank koolaid once for someone else and I will not do it again! My vote goes to McCain since Hillary has suspended her campaign. I have become a member of the Citizens for McCain and Veterans for McCain. I would much rather a Naval hero as our leader than an empty shit….Obama. He wants to do things like raise our capitol gains tax to 28%. That is definitely not good for the economy. Beyond that I can’t tell you what Obama wants to do because he just ahhhs and uhhhs when questioned about his policies!

Actually, I think the Warren Commission got it about right.

I mean, Oliver Stone made a great movie but that’s all it was. Oswald took an effing rifle to work with him that day. When Officer Tippett tried to question Oswald who was running down the street, Oswald pulled out a pistol and shot him dead.

He tried to shoot the policeman who arrested him in the movie theater as well.

These are not the actions of an innocent man.

“He wants to do things like raise our capitol gains tax to 28%.”

You buy and sell a lot of property there in the Navy, Navy vet?

I read this morning that the income tax you and I paid last year was spent in ONE SECOND in Iraq.

This is the war that McCain said could go on for 100 years as far as he was concerned.

And Gore developed his charisma AFTER he lost!”

YOU NOTICED THAT TOO! I saw him speak during Obama’s endorsement, and WOW where was that guy when we were trying to run him for President?

I know where he was..hiding from a Howard Dean moment. Politics takes the personality right out of you.

I saw a flag draped coffin on the TV the other day, and that is why I said that. I was surprised because I thought it was illegal too. I think that infringes upon free speech, but you know that constitution is just a g’d piece of paper. Take away everything except the right to bear arms and the R-cons are all for it.

Kia, good to see you..how’s that gay marriage thing?
Has it ruined your marriage yet? Hehe.

Reagan SOLD ARMS TO OUR ENEMIES…and you call him some kind of military hero? Are you f’n kidding me? you can’t even compare Carter to how bad Bush has been. At least Carter left office with his dignity intact, he wasn’t a sellout.

“At least Carter left office with his dignity intact,…”

Do what? The hostages were released that same day.
He has been losing his dignity every day since.

It appears that the Capn is a liar fleettwood. Not the first time he has perpetrated this lie either.

I suppose it’s okay if you’re a Lib to lie.

Must be, Capn does it all the time.

I’m not sure experience is the biggest asset one can bring to the presidency. The ability to grow after taking office seems to be the hallmark of effective governance and many of the best leaders share that trait. Starting slow at the gate but getting their stride as time and crisis matures them, is a better hope than a hot shot with all the answers. About the only exception I can think of is Bush Senior who was an ambassador,
CIA director and VP then implementing a sucessful foreign policy like ridding Panama of Noriega, throwing Iraq out of Kuwait, and the re-unification of Germany as well as placing the US at the top of all our respected friends list as a go-to country.

Moveon does INDEED have a new ad.

Young mother telling John McCain, “You can’t have my son.” for McCain’s hundred years war.

It may be the most moving political ad since the the little girl with the daisies.

“Women aren’t going to McCain”, and Mccain querries “What the hell’s wrong with them C#nts, I had Carly Fiorni front for me?”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBALqvp08Vk

New McCain Ad. Don’t watch it at work.

Do you have a problem with some parents wanting to rock and baptise their babies who are dying or have died?

Figures you would.
If it were a late term ‘partial birth’ they’d not be able to do that…remember…with that whole crushed skull baby parts in pieces argument you always put forth. Unless you’re admitting that you lie now.

VOTE FOR PEDRO!!!!! We are so screwed.

I talked once to a woman who helped baptize the dead babies while their mothers hold them after they’ve been aborted. I guess they think it’s somehow therapeutic to do that. She worked with George Gardner and Tiller’s clinic. She honestly felt like she was doing God’s work. So as off base as Parkay is, there is some truth to what he says.
I honestly think she was about as hypocritical as a “Christian” can get. I honestly felt as though I was in the presence of pure evil being in the same room with her…it was eery for me.

I don’t think someone who is standing around, waiting for a baby to be killed so they can baptize it afterward is a Christian in any sense of the word…it just seems sick to me.

Mary,
“I don’t think someone who is standing around, waiting for a baby to be killed so they can baptize it afterward is a Christian in any sense of the word…it just seems sick to me.”

Did it ever occur to you that they might be there to lend comfort to a woman during a difficult time? I didn’t think so!

“By the way Mary, did you hear that loud cracking sound in the anti-abortion movement? A Catholic charity in Virginia, of all places, arranged for a 16 year old girl to get an abortion, signed the needed paperwork and provided her trasportation to and from the clinic.”

I SERIOUSLY doubt that, Jed.