As we get closer to the actual general election contest beginning, I keep running across Hillary-style messages such as this one from the Democratic Party:
"Clyburn and Fowler Against Third Bush Term"
Columbia, SC – South Carolina Democratic Party Chair Carol Fowler and House Majority Whip Congressman James E. Clyburn addressed Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain’s visit to South Carolina and the possible impact his presidency could have on the state today during a press conference.
"South Carolina doesn’t need a third Bush term and that’s all John McCain has to offer voters. His policies and outlook on the war in Iraq, the economy and healthcare show he is clearly out touch with everyday Americans. Why else would he say that a lot of Americans’ economic problems are "psychological?" Those of us who weren’t lucky enough to marry multimillionaires know those problems are real," said Fowler.
"Senator McCain is trying to give President Bush a third term and that would be disastrous for South Carolina and this nation," Congressman Clyburn said. "We can’t afford four more years of failed Republican policies that have devastated working Americans with skyrocketing gas prices, record foreclosures, and lack of affordable health care. We can’t afford to remain in Iraq indefinitely when we can’t take care of our veterans and those on the homefront. We need a change in direction, and continuing the disastrous Republican policies is the wrong way to go."
I realize that running against W. again is an attractive and entertaining fantasy for Democrats, particularly those of the red-meat Clinton variety. It plays to their own hostility toward the Prez, and has the added bonus that Mr. Bush’s approval ratings are almost as low as those of the Democratic Congress.
But if they really want to win in November — and I get the impression that they do — Democrats need to figure out that they’re not going to get the chance to do that. First, there’s the 22nd Amendment, and then there’s the small matter that Mr. Bush isn’t actually running this year. On the contrary, the Republican who has been rightly seen (for at least eight years) as sort of the Republican anti-Bush is a shoo-in for the nomination.
Democrats can keep telling themselves that they’re running against Bush, but there’s this other little problem, one which political parties love to ignore and deny, but which is true nevertheless: Presidential elections are won by winning over those of us who subscribe to neither party.
And independents can tell the difference between Bush and McCain. Maybe you can’t, but we can. And we like McCain, for some of the same reasons that we like Obama. So with these two guys running against each other — as opposed to a contest between, say, Clinton and Bush (the ultimate partisan fantasy) — you need to get a new line.
Related Posts
“We” independents Brad? You have been unabashedly pro-McCain for a long time. To lump yourself with other independents is specious at best.
McCain is not W. That is not the point. McCain wants to continues W’s “war”, supports the tax cuts for the wealthy, and has kowtowed to the right. The sparkle of his maverick sheen fades with each flip flop.
With the majority of Americans opposing W’s “war” and feeling the pinch of the recession (the definition both men apparently have yet to ascertain) McCain is preaching the W gospel in two huge campaign issues.
I am disappointed that you offer such opinion as an unbiased “independent”. When you start a thread about: Hagee because he believes you, me, and my wife and mother are cult members; McCain admitting he doesn’t know much about economic; his claim that we went into Iraq because of oil; and his flip flops then you can claim to be an independent. Until then, you are clearly a partisan – the very beast you claim to abhor.
Hmmm. I thought I had been unabashedly pro-McCain, and unabashedly pro-Obama.
Or was I reading some other blog, and some other editorial page…
Bush continued Clinton’s war in Iraq, authorized by 98 Senators.
Clinton only dropped 81,000 tons of bombs on Iraq and made 80 speeches about their WMD. He did not have the guts to commit ground troops. Bush did.
I went back a couple months to pull examples of the McCain partisanship. I’ll grant you the Obama support and the occasional rap on the knuckles of McCain, but your support of McCain is profound.
Pro McCain threads
*Face the Fact
*“McCain believes in America” – BW
*100 years in Iraq
You took a profound interest in Reverend Wright but turned a blind eye to McCain’s pastors.
Wright Threads
*Wright Fails to Clarify
*Did Obama get Job Done
*Wright’s Outrages
*Wright Context
*Wright Sermon Context
*GD America
Threads on Hagee, Falwell, Parsley
Other examples of bias
Problem with McCain – Until the gas tax holiday, the worst thing you could say about McCain is he supported W’s tax cuts.
“even John McCain” in reference to the political posturing of the 3 candidates. You set McCain apart from the other two as if it is a surprise that he stooped to the level they had.
But now, he declines an obvious chance to join Hillary in piling on…I just thought maybe somebody should point that out. – BW (McCain invoked Wright today and repeatedly stated Hamas support Obama, but not mention of that from Brad)
McCain in Middle East – not a word about the multiple Sunni-Shia gaffes.
McCain’s apology – McCain supporter speaks at a McCain event, refers to Barak HUSSEIN Obama, and McCain doesn’t say squat until AFTER the event when confronted by reporters. Brad believes both McCain and Obama handled this well. Obama’s camp handled this well. Another McCain supporter referred to Obama as Tiger Woods at another McCain event and he again stuck his head in the sand.
NYT McCain scandal – critique of news reporting but no critique on McCain’s actions.
Read My Lips – “McCain’s virtues outweigh his sins” while you are only willing the following for Obama; “I won’t dismiss Obama all together” because of his sins.
McCain turns to November – you merely “quibble” with McCain on his phrasing in how he pointed out earmarks of the Obama and Clinton (which you highlight). Yet there’s no mention of the unusual letters McCain wrote on behalf of a lobbyist, no mention of his lobbyist staff, and no mention of his efforts at championing a land deal for another supporter (today’s news).
McCain-Romney “how dare he occasionally agree with the guy [W]?” minimizing their agreement on MAJOR issues like the economy and the “war”
Lee, you should have amended your comments to says “Clinton had the brains not commit the troops and squarely inject the U.S. into the ground game of a 2000 year old conflict that won’t end any decade (centry) in the near future, Bush didn’t.”
I’m all for Obama running an issues-oriented, dignified campaign devoid of personal attack, but asking him and the Democratic party NOT to try to hang the albatross of George W Bush around McCain’s neck when their views on the two major issues of the day (economy, Iraq) are hardly different? You’re basically asking the Cavaliers to play without LeBron James, or a poker player with 4 aces to give back three of them into the pile. No way. Independents will have their choice, and it will be clear. Based on the incredible number of new voter registrations, it appears many of them already have.
Brad, just like Clinton, McCain can’t see that its over.
During the GOP primaries, McCain failed to win ANY primaries in states that traditionally vote GOP in the general election.
McCain is the best candidate to for the Democrats to run against. There is just oo much baggage for McCain to over come and this is why Clinton doesn’t want to bail out of the Dem Primaries as whomever wins that wins it all.
Let’s look at McCain’s hypocracy over campaign finance (the law that he breaks carries his own name for chris-sake (McCain-Feingold). How about McCain’s total denial that over 3/4 of American’s know that the war in Irag is a disaster and they want the troop out of there. 100 years anyone? Or, how about nearly 90% of Americans do not want any military against Iran. Bomb Bomb Iran anybody? Economy in a recession and he wants to continue the Bush policies which are viewed to be the cause of most of the problems? Seriously? If Rev. Wright was an issue for Obama, how will McCain will handle not one, but three (Hagee, Falwell, Roberts) controversial endorsements when American’s are tired of religious litmus tests?
He can’t win and only McCain doesn’t know it.
McCain has had a free pass from scrutiny for the last few months while American focuses on the Democratic ticket..and during this time his poll numbers failed to grow and his fund raising has been annemic. If you think McCain’s numbers will improve, just wait until he has to publically deal issue after issue on a daily basis.
Nearly 80% of American’s feel that the US is in bad shape and Geroge Bush is to blame. remember Bush won with a 51% majority. That means that nearly half of that 80% Americans voted for Bush at one time, but now seem him and his policies as a utter failure.
Why would anyone run on the policies of a President who has the all time disapproval rating? Even Gerald Ford, who was the ultimate anti-Nixon Republican couldn’t win after Watergate. There is no way any Republican who alligns themselves with Bush can win in 2008. Bush certainly was a uniter….bringing people of all walks of life together to end his disasterous reign.
The only answer to any of these is that McCain is so full of lust of power, he can’t see straight….let alone Talk Straight.
They both suck.
John McCain is an old man with old ideas. He’s George W. Bush’s third term. Barack Obama is a young man with even older ideas. He’s Jimmy Carter’s second term.
The sad thing is that we wouldn’t be in this situation if Bill Clinton could have kept it in his pants. Without Monica, Al Gore would have easily defeated George W. Bush and continued the Clinton policies that worked pretty well for the previous eight years. (Yes, Gore got more votes than Bush did. As for Florida, nobody would have cared about Florida if Gore had won Tennessee. My point is that based on Clinton’s record, it shouldn’t have been close.)
We don’t need “honesty”, we don’t need “integrity” or “character.” ALL politicians lie, but the media chooses to ignore the lies of the ones they like. We need someone who can do the job, and neither Barack Obama nor John McCain is that man.
Sorry Brad, a vote for McCain is a vote for a third Bush term. He proposes a 100 year occupation of Iraq, just like Bush. He acknowledges he knows little about economic matters. Bush’s record on that speaks for itself. McCain has little to say about healthcare, in effect suggesting everything is ok with the current, GOP, healthcare system. That is pretty much the way Bush has approached that importantant issue. All he wants to do with energy is give everyone a brief tax holiday. That pretty much follows in the non-action approach of the current President.
This election is about change and the future. McCain only promises the same. The same on military matters, the same on taxes and the economy, the same on health care and the same on energy. So why shouldn’t the Dems campaign against Bush? Sounds pretty much like McCain is nothing but an elderly Bush clone to me.
I submitted a long post that was flagged as spam. I know you are fair and will post it even though it clearly demonstrates your partisanship towards McCain.
To summarize that post:
*There have been 3 threads, not including endorsements, in the last two months that favor McCain.
*There have been 5-6 threads on Wright but not a peep about Parsely, Hagee, Falwell.
*There are multiple examples of you brushing aside McCain’s faults:
1.He repeatedly confuses Shia and Sunni but you ignore it in the thread on his trip to the M.E.
2.In your thread on the VaTech anniversary you state “even McCain” engaged in the conduct of his rivals, as if he is normally is better than the others.
3.In the tax cut thread, you state McCain’s “virtues outweigh his sins” but for Obama you state “I won’t dismiss him all together.”
4.In the Hillary style attack ads thread, you brag about how McCain had an “obvious chance to pile” and you “thought someone should point this out”. McCain invoked Wright several times now and has attempted to link Obama with Hamas. I don’t see a word about this.
You have been critical of McCain when it comes to gas and other taxes. Turning a blind eye to the abundance of other “sins” indicates that the tax issue is a personal affront to you but you are willing to give him a pass otherwise.
Again, when you post threads about Hagee, flip flopping, going to “war” for oil, his admission that he is weak on economic issues, and his pathetic attempt to play the Hamas card then I believe you can claim “independence”.
Randy, excellent points. The point about Hagee is especially damning. The press if at last is paying a tiny bit of attention to this. But not Brad.
Brad’s claim of “independence” is unsupportable given the fact that he has endorsed the GOP presidential candidate 6 straight times. That hardly qualifies him as an independent.
Here’s an excerpt from the Washington Post that show’s yet again how John McCain’s ambition for president is overshadowing any ethical sensibilities he may have.
PRESCOTT, Ariz. — Sen. John McCain championed legislation that will let an Arizona rancher trade remote grassland and ponderosa pine forest here for acres of valuable federally owned property that is ready for development, a land swap that now stands to directly benefit one of his top presidential campaign fundraisers].
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/08/AR2008050803494.html?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter
To all of the points made above, we might well add this question:
Which is a fairer link to make: Obama linking McCain to George Bush, whom McCain has supported, to whom McCain went for an endorsement, and whose policies on major issues McCain espouses, or…
the “straight talking” McCain’s comments linking Obama to a Hamas “endorsement,” based on some offhanded comments by an Hamas official, neither sought nor embraced by Obama.
???
As the saying goes, you make the call.
McCain continues to wallow in the mud. Here’s a link to another flip flop and a link showing another lobbyist buddy getting special treatment. The American voter will have to face the fact that the democrats are facing John McCain.
Hello to America:
If you have not gotten the presidential election message of 2008, it is vote your race interests but tell the pollsters you are a character and issues person and undecided. Meanwhile ponder this:
Obama is not an American; he is half kenyan east african (not west african like the slave descendants in the USA); he had an indonesian stepfather, and has kenyan stepbrothers and an indonesian half sister, was born in hawaii and spent his formative years in in hawaii (where whites are second class citizens)and indonesia where he attended a muslim school.
His kenyan grandfather was outraged that obama’s sperm donor daddy had polluted the kenyan luo tribe obama line with the white kansan trash obama mama. (read his dreams from my father for references to above)
Worse is that the who am I identity formative years he spent immersed in anti eurocentric, pro leftist afrocentric America is bad, in occidental college in california, columbia university in new york, and harvard leftist university.
He then became the angry “black” man to right the oppressive wrongs of the inner city that he never experienced but would make him “authentic”, a brother in the stuggle.
He has been completely stewed in anti white anti America propaganda throughout his affirmative action educational greased path, as did his south side of chicago princeton afro sour puss princess.
Obama has no experience as an American, just a leftist plutocrat in melanin blessed clothing. And no military experience to boot.
Mccain at least is an American, from a long line of American fighting men.
The viet nam torture he endured may have warped him, but he has been an American senator for 20 years,
while obama has been for 20 years a protege of the anti white foaming rants of reverund black liberation wright, and is the spawn of chicago ethnic politics, where reparations support is the mantra of the afrocentric clique.
Will obama tax Americans to pay reparations to his personal african lobby? Will muslims also have to pay? More worse is better.
I only hope Candid copied this asinine diatribe. If he spent time actually typing it himself, he should be embarrassed by the poor grammar and faulty logic.
Proper names should be capitalized. For example, “Candid is white trash.” Notice I capitalized the name.
Vietnam is one word, not “viet nam” – I assume there was an attempt at phonetic spelling.
“reverund” – more phonetic spelling?
Because Obama is not a descendant of slaves as highlighted by Chuckles here, why would he care about the reparations?
If he is the protege, as Candid (notice the capitalization) claims, of a black liberation theologist, which is distinctly Christian in nature, why would he side with Muslims (notice the capitalization)?
Candid, if you are going to trash Obama, could you at least use spell check and check your facts?
By the way, McCain wasn’t born in the U.S.
Mccain at least is an American, from a long line of American fighting men.
-Candid
McCain was actually born in Panama. Does that make him Panamanian?
As bad as McCain is, he is not a traitor.
Barack Obama is a traitor.
His role models and mentors are preachers of hate for America – Jeremiah Wright, Malcolm X, Louis Farakan, Saul Alinsky, and Frank Marshall Davis.
His close friends include terrorists like Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dorn and Angela Davis.
He has been endorsed by mideast terrorists like the leaders of Hamas, Iran, and Libya.
His campaign is run by assorted radicals, some of whom have met with Muslim terrorists.
Lee believes Obama was highly successful suicide bomber as well.
Randy, I’ve been having trouble with TypePad lately, too — with my comments being labeled “spam” and disallowed. It happens when I use HTML in the comment. This is something that from time to time will happen to me for a few days, then it goes away…
Anyway, I went and found one of your blocked comments and tried to post it. I got a typepad error. Let me see if I can copy it into a separate comment, which will immediately follow…
HERE’S MY ATTEMPT TO POST RANDY’S COMMENT:
I went back a couple months to pull examples of the McCain partisanship. I’ll grant you the Obama support and the occasional rap on the knuckles of McCain, but your support of McCain is profound.
Pro McCain threads
*Face the Fact
*“McCain believes in America” – BW
*100 years in Iraq
You took a profound interest in Reverend Wright but turned a blind eye to McCain’s pastors.
Wright Threads
*Wright Fails to Clarify
*Did Obama get Job Done
*Wright’s Outrages
*Wright Context
*Wright Sermon Context
*GD America
Threads on Hagee, Falwell, Parsley
Other examples of bias
Problem with McCain – Until the gas tax holiday, the worst thing you could say about McCain is he supported W’s tax cuts.
“even John McCain” in reference to the political posturing of the 3 candidates. You set McCain apart from the other two as if it is a surprise that he stooped to the level they had.
But now, he declines an obvious chance to join Hillary in piling on…I just thought maybe somebody should point that out. – BW (McCain invoked Wright today and repeatedly stated Hamas support Obama, but not mention of that from Brad)
McCain in Middle East – not a word about the multiple Sunni-Shia gaffes.
McCain’s apology – McCain supporter speaks at a McCain event, refers to Barak HUSSEIN Obama, and McCain doesn’t say squat until AFTER the event when confronted by reporters. Brad believes both McCain and Obama handled this well. Obama’s camp handled this well. Another McCain supporter referred to Obama as Tiger Woods at another McCain event and he again stuck his head in the sand.
NYT McCain scandal – critique of news reporting but no critique on McCain’s actions.
Read My Lips – “McCain’s virtues outweigh his sins” while you are only willing the following for Obama; “I won’t dismiss Obama all together” because of his sins.
McCain turns to November – you merely “quibble” with McCain on his phrasing in how he pointed out earmarks of the Obama and Clinton (which you highlight). Yet there’s no mention of the unusual letters McCain wrote on behalf of a lobbyist, no mention of his lobbyist staff, and no mention of his efforts at championing a land deal for another supporter (today’s news).
McCain-Romney “how dare he occasionally agree with the guy [Pres. Bush]?” – BW in minimizing the McCain-W agreement on MAJOR issues like the economy and the “war”
Hey, it WORKED!
And the weird thing is, TypePad tried to tell me it DIDN’T work, so I was coming back here (from my foray into the guts of the blog) to tell you that.
Well, that goes on the scoreboard as the ONLY thing I’ve tried to do on the blog today that worked. Lots of technical problems today…
… that is, the only thing that contained HTML that worked. I can post simple comments such as this, no problem…
That’s why I believe BW is fair, he’s willing to take the trouble to post a submission that criticizes his position.
Thank you.
Ummm… Randy, now that I look over the post you had so much trouble is, all it says is what I keep saying: Yeah, I like McCain.
I refer you to my first response to you above. I like McCain. I like Obama. That doesn’t mean I won’t see problems from time to time with each of them, which I have. And guess what? They aren’t necessarily going to be the same things that YOU think are a big deal.
About the only thing you’ve convinced me of here is that YOU have really made up your mind about the election, and you’re really passionate about it. In fact, it’s gotten to where I start reading one of your comments, and I think it’s from bud until I get to the bottom of it…
I read Randy’s comments about without reading the previous post thus assuming Brad had posted this. I’ll give Brad some credit for posting something that clearly does not flatter Brad.
As for the comments: Great job Randy! You did a wonderful job highlighting a huge problem with the MSM. This love affair with McCain is happening on every network, newspaper and radio channel. It’s like they can’t speak ill of their lovable ole’ granpa. Yet that lovable ole’ granpa is very dangerous. That’s the real story in this year’s election.
Brad, your defence ignores this critical fact. The preacher scorecard reads as follows:
Obama Wright – 6
McCain-Hagee/Falwell/Parsely – 0
Brad, take a peek at the dissatisfaction of a serious conservative, Ron Paul, and see what’s in store for your boy, McCain.
bud and I are in agreement in many areas. Yes, I have made up my mind in regards to the election but I’m not passing myself off as independent.
Yes, you have highlighted what you like and dislike about both McCain and Obama. My point is you often defer to the former. Aside from the tax issue, you haven’t criticized him in any capacity and there is a ton of stuff there – not just what I deemed important. For example, McCain takes a trip to Iraq, repeatedly confuses Shia with Sunni and you ignore it. That’s harldy an issue only I find important.
You can’t be perfectly unbiased and I think it shows here. Regardless, I do respect your effort to be fair.
Fellas, there’s something that y’all seem to have a lot of trouble recognizing.
To you, this Hagee guy is EXACTLY THE SAME THING as Rev. Wright. At least, this is what I gather from the equation bud and Randy keep putting forth, which goes like this: McCain/Hagee equals Obama/Wright.
Yet I have seen zero evidence that indicates that. Mind you, I know nothing about Hagee that y’all haven’t told me, whereas I have many, many sources on Wright without trying. As for Falwell — what are you saying, that McCain sought his backing before he kicked the bucket, and that is somehow the same as someone being your spiritual mentor? If so, start arguing fellas, but you’ve got some heavy lifting to do there.
And this is going to shock you terribly — I don’t have the slightest idea who this “Parsely” person is. And I’m not interested enough to Google him.
Let me try to give you some perspective on this. The day before the Wright story broke and became a serious problem for Obama — which is to say, the day before it appeared on the front pages of MSM publications — I saw a couple of e-mails headlined something about “Obama’s pastor…” and I deleted them without reading, because anti-Obama conspiracy types had been whispering about Wright for months, and I wasn’t in the market.
But the next day I saw the play on Wright, and saw the videos that went with it, and went “Oh, s–t — this is a serious mess for my guy Obama.”
It’s sort of like what happened that day that the Monica Lewinsky thing first broke in the MSM (after a day or so on Drudge). I had been bored to death by the Republicans going on and on about Paula this and Whitewater that for months on end, and then I hear that the president may have lied under oath about THIS bimbo … and I thought the same thing that I heard George Stephanopoulous (or however you spell his name) say that same day: If this is true, he’ll have to be impeached.
Folks, not every bit of bad news you hear about somebody has the same weight as the others; it just doesn’t. Thank God. If it did, the world that the 24/7 TV “news” twits describe — one in which everybody’s political career is on the line every day — would actually be the real world. And it isn’t. And nobody, but nobody, would ever be worth voting for. Fortunately, some people ARE worth voting for.
But if your standard for whether a candidate is worthy is that nobody can think of ANYthing to use to bludgeon him with, then you might as well give up on this country altogether…
Folks, forgive me for posting this in several places, but I wanted to let you know…
I’m having serious TypePad problems today (Monday, May 12), and they’ve prevented me from putting up ANY new posts, although I’ve tried like fun.
When it’s fixed, I’ll be back…
Oh, and Randy — that link didn’t work (this might be because of the same problems I’m having today with TypePad).
But Ron Paul isn’t a conservative — he’s a proud libertarian.
Paul calls himself a conservative which he is in terms of the Godfather, Buckley.
Regarding Hagee, the MSM is putting the spotlight on him. I offered a link to a Newsweek article. Olbermann cites him often. Perhaps in the coming weeks you’ll think “Oh s–t, this is a serious mess for my boy McCain.” True, it’s not the same as the Wright situation, but you have THREE different extremist pastors associated with McCain. If there is such a big deal about associates (in addition to McCain’s lobbyist posse) then this is germane.
Regarding Parsley, McCain’s admitted spiritual adviser:
Senator John McCain hailed as a spiritual adviser an Ohio megachurch pastor who has called upon Christians to wage a “war” against the “false religion” of Islam with the aim of destroying it.
Nah, it’s not important that our possible future president, who recklessly sang “Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran” has for a spiritual adviser a man who believes we should reconstitute the Crusades.
Lobbyists running Obama’s campaign
————————————
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/obamas-k-street-project-2007-03-28.html
Obama adviser who met with Hamas resigns
May 11, 2008
Recommend (30)
LYNN SWEET
blogs.suntimes.com/sweet
Rob Malley, a Middle East policy adviser to likely Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama, resigned after news surfaced that he had been meeting with Hamas — something Obama pledged he himself would never do.
Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt said Saturday Malley called the Obama campaign on Friday to sever ties with the candidate after learning the Times of London was publishing a story about his contacts with the terrorist group.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/sweet/943467,CST-NWS-Sweet11.article
Mind you, I know nothing about Hagee that y’all haven’t told me, whereas I have many, many sources on Wright without trying.
-Brad
Then why don’t you go find out. This statement makes my point. The MSM is showing a total bias when it comes to the preachers involved. Hagee is clearly a hate monger who suggests the Catholic Church is a cult along with many other outrageous, bigoted comments. The fact that he endorsed McCain is no big deal. Nutcases endorse presidential candidates all the time. What IS important, much more important in my view than the Wright incident, is that McCain actively SOUGHT his endorsement. Unless you’re a complete moran that implies McCain supports the views of this man. Otherwise why would he ACTIVELY seek out his endorsement. That makes this is big deal. It at least merits 1 blog post for every 6 regarding Wright. This is not hard to understand. It shows bias, something you claim to abhor. And it completely undermines your credibility.
Randy writing:
One point struck me BW, why wouldn’t you be take an “interest” in McCain’s pastor issue which is directly related to his conservative base problem. This is a significant narrative when you consider his flip flop regarding the “agents of intolerance”, the 25% of republicans who continue to vote against him in GOP primaries, Barr’s candidacy, and the Paul protest planning for the conention. This is not “interesting”?
> One point struck me BW, why wouldn’t you be
>take an “interest” in McCain’s pastor issue
>which is directly related
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Ref: Brad’s interpretation of McCain’s response when asked “How are you going to beat the bitch?” Brad ignored the laugh and the “Good question!” response by McCain and jumped to the part where he put on his gravitas hat and did the esteemed senator act.
Barak’s core advisors are terrorists, and sympathizers with Hamas, Hezbollah and Al Qaeda.
Obama’s background is in anti-American black Marxism.
Every candidate has supporters he doesn’t want, but the nutcases supporting Barak are paid staffers.
Is it just me or does everyone else get the feeling tha Lee doesn’t like Barak Obama very much? Maybe we should hide the sharp knives, poison and rope after he gets elected and put Lee on a 24 hour suicide watch.
Folks, it would probably help us have productive conversations if we just accepted Lee’s pronouncements as given — put them in the background of the text, like so many commas or some such (and no, commas aren’t exactly in the background per se, but you know what I mean) — and move on.
To provide statistical support for what all of you probably realize intuitively — Lee has filed eight of the last 20 commments on this blog…
Someone has recently intimated I should ban Lee from the blog (again). But as long as he uses his full name, he is allowed a certain amount of, umm, LEEway.
Just don’t let him derail the conversation…
Make that 9 of the last 22… As is his wont, he just got in the first comment on this post…
I don’t dislike Obama. Like all con artists, he is likable.
I just recognize the fact that he dislikes America. He panders to the rabble with hate speech against entrepreneurs, investors, doctors, and our military.
His friends and associates are terrorists and sympathizers. That’s a fact.
He proposes huge taxes and higher deficits. That’s a fact.
He cares nothing about the Constitutional limits on his agenda. He says so.
I guess we know which way Lee is LEEaning. At least he’s not going back to the long past days when he claimed the majority of Hispanics we see are illegals.
Oh, I forgot my comma.
Do you even care if it is 12,000,000 or 30,000,000?
I’ll bet The State a dollar for every illegal alien over 12,000,000 who will rush out to claim amnesty under Obamam, Hillary or McCain.