McCain tops Obama in latest Gallup Poll

Rocky Mountain News

Published September 8, 2008 at 8:18 a.m.
Updated September 8, 2008 at 8:18 a.m.

Text size

More Elections

Comments

September 8, 2008

8:25 a.m.

Suggest removal

Scott writes:

With the poles bouncing around like this, I think we're in for a real horse race this Fall. It will be pathetic to see the pundits spin the outcome of the polls every time the lead changes.

Scott
September 8, 2008

8:36 a.m.

Suggest removal

PriusGuy writes:

The bounce will go away as the honeymoon with Palin tapers off and we learn more about her lies regarding the Bridge to Nowhere and as the ethics investigation against her continues.

As for McCain, he's still the same old McSame, voting with Bush almost all the time.
September 8, 2008

8:37 a.m.

Suggest removal

Barron writes:

Some people buy this; I surely don't. I personally don't know a single person who tells me with a straight face that they're voting McCain. Nobody called me to ask.
September 8, 2008

8:43 a.m.

Suggest removal

SLoganSt writes:

I'm voting for McCain. I have a friend who caucused for Hillary in the spring that is planning to vote for McCain; my friend likes his choice of Palin. Perhaps you need to broaden your circle of friends?
September 8, 2008

8:44 a.m.

Suggest removal

JYP3500 writes:

No surprise here. The silent majority of Americas want to keep adults in the White House like McCain/Palin in dangerous times.

And McCain will jump even further ahead as more negative news will be revealed about Obama's past.

Oh yeah, and be sure to watch Bill O'Reilly's interviews with Barack over the next 3 nights. Finally, some hardball questions for "The One". It will be very revealing.
September 8, 2008

8:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

rickg19611 writes:

"Barron writes:............I personally don't know a single person who tells me with a straight face that they're voting McCain."

That's what you get for hanging out with the crackheads in Boulder.

Enjoy those poll results.... especially the ones that show that LIKELY voters have McCain ahead by 10% points.

The more voters learn about Osama bin Obama, the lower he sinks in the polls. The continual decline in the polls by the SS Obama-tanic is proof that Democrats should have listened to America instead of listening to the leftwing extremists kook webnuts..... and picked a better nominee than that empty suit with ties to sleazy anti-Americans.
September 8, 2008

8:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

dilligaf writes:

So McCain gets a very good bounce. And 90% of it has a lot to do with the new Barbie. But before the cons get to excited you need to go look at the current Electoral College projections. It will definitely send you all into deep depression.
September 8, 2008

8:47 a.m.

Suggest removal

windbourne writes:

hehehe.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epol...

Follow all the polls.
September 8, 2008

8:48 a.m.

Suggest removal

Barron writes:

SLoganSt, if you're referring to my comment, I personally know people of every single race, unlike most Republicans if you go by the faces at that convention. I'm also not buying your Hillary caucus story. That's some lame story that McCain trolls are putting out. Everyone I know who caucused for Hillary is voting Obama/Biden, because Palin is about the furthest thing from what Hillary stands for as it gets, other than the misogynist McCain.
September 8, 2008

8:50 a.m.

Suggest removal

cfk writes:

This is just the beginning! McCain's lead will become greater as time goes on. While visiting Colorado last week, all my democratic family and friends said they are voting McCain-Palin. There is a lot of fear and uncertainty about Obama.
September 8, 2008

8:54 a.m.

Suggest removal

DenverDan writes:

JYP3500

Dont fall for the "dangerous times" fear crap, that is how Bush got his second term. Yes the man you all voted for TWICE and now dont talk about. We will not let you delete him from your past like the GOP did.
September 8, 2008

9 a.m.

Suggest removal

denverone writes:

All is right with the world.
September 8, 2008

9 a.m.

Suggest removal

JMH writes:

Can Republicans EVER talk without lying? Every NeoCon stooge out there says they know some Democrat that is gonna suddenly go against everything a Democrat believes in and is suddenlty gonna vote for "4 more years of the same". I'm calling BS! Pretty safe to say none of you wackos know any liberals! Birds of a feather tend to flock together...

Oh and NeoCons, enjoy teh bounce, it wont last long. The Palin pick is blowing in the GOP faces up day by day. They wont be able to hide all the negative stories about Palin for the next 2 months. There are tons of "skeletons" in that nutjobs closet. My prediction, this is as good as it will get for McCain. Palin will be his undoing!
September 8, 2008

9:03 a.m.

Suggest removal

windskull writes:

Go to the "political dashboard" where they direct us for the latest polling numbers lo & behold if it does not show Obama with 250 projected electoral college votes denoted as 45.7% while showing McCain with 237 projected electoral college votes denoted as 46.7% and on the far right of the screen it`s Obama 53.9% to McCain 47.1% while the markets tab shows Obama at 56.6% with 311and McCain at 46% with 227 in the electoral college...if ever there was good cause to demand U/A drug screening I think we found it and somebody from the elections board best make DAMN SURE these idiots do not get within a country mile of the ballot count in November or we may well see them call it for Bush AGAIN!
September 8, 2008

9:07 a.m.

Suggest removal

rkymtnskiers writes:

Barron, I find your biased comment interesting. In my circle, successful, educated, realistic, responsible people with IQ > shoe size, I have yet to find a single person who is not voting for McCain. It is obvious that those who want bigger government, higher taxes, higher energy costs, who are or have been on some sort of social welfare programs, will vote for Obama, vs. those who know that the only way to succeed in life is to work for it, will vote for McCain.
September 8, 2008

9:07 a.m.

Suggest removal

Fireball writes:

The Obamaites are loudmouths as is the adoring leftwing media. As such, they may even have a greater say in the polls making them even closer than in reality. The only poll that counts in on Nov. 4th and once the Silent Majority has its say, we will have shut up these loudmouths and hired the right people for the job.
September 8, 2008

9:11 a.m.

Suggest removal

mark79trans writes:

dilligaf writes:

So McCain gets a very good bounce. And 90% of it has a lot to do with the new Barbie.

----------------

Nice. A women with a family and a career of substance, and she receives these types of insults. Keep it up. I am sure Mr. Obama's numbers with women will go down even further. Governor Palin has done well for her family, her community, and for the people of the state of Alaska; she is a real person in a see of political and partisan garbage and she should be honored by her title of Governor.

Senator Clinton took it (unfortunately) for the good of her party, but Palin and the American people won't.
September 8, 2008

9:11 a.m.

Suggest removal

Cwillyrun1 writes:

Barron......... you don't know many people then, do you? I know quite a few that will vote for McCain/Palin and no, they're not Republicans either. They don't believe someone who doesn't have a clue about running anything at an executive level should be the one to run our country.

Denverdan, these are "dangerous times", unless you believe attacks from religious extremists from the middle east are of no concern. I'm sure you're one who believes the WTC attack was coordinated by the US government. I wish people were more informed instead of letting someone lead them to the trough, like you.

I saw Biden on Meet the Press yesterday morning, and the way he talked, a viewer could come away with the impression he created every piece of legislation in Washington. He's so full of himself. Funny though, I'm not sure if he's had his face stretched back or what. He must've went to the same doctor Joan Rivers visits. Seeing him, it made me think of the puppet that Jeff Dunham uses in his shows........ the old man puppet with a sour attitude.
September 8, 2008

9:15 a.m.

Suggest removal

Cwillyrun1 writes:

What I really find disappointing in the Democrats is how they want to desperately attack Palin and it's not working out too well. With Bill and Hillary, Chelsea Clinton was "off limits". With Obama, his wife Michelle is "off limits". Yet for the Democrats, Palin's family is fair game..... McCain's wife is fair game. Why should the Democratic party talk about the subjects at hand when all they want to do is attack and degrade their opponents in ways they don't want to be attacked back? Hypocritical...... the Democrats true slogan!
September 8, 2008

9:16 a.m.

Suggest removal

windskull writes:

rkymtnskiers...that MUST be a typo cuz you sound more like rkymtnoysters battered & fried NUTS!
September 8, 2008

9:19 a.m.

Suggest removal

dcolon47 writes:

The Dems need a new script of lies, the people are sick and tired of oblama just talking about himself. The Reps lies are more believable.
September 8, 2008

9:21 a.m.

Suggest removal

DenverDan writes:

Cwillyrun1

That is all you have is spread fear about an attack, and only a republican can do the right thing like Jr. did Please 9/11 happend under Bush. Dont fall for the fear crap. Americans need more than a good soldier. War, war and more war with a spread of fear. That is what you run on. Not real issues.
September 8, 2008

9:25 a.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

Cwilly: "Denverdan, these are "dangerous times", unless you believe attacks from religious extremists from the middle east are of no concern."

Even more dangerous would be to let America's equally loony religious extremists lead us in the defense of their middle east counterparts. Please understand the following is not a diatribe against Christianity. I'm telling you this as a Christian who believes the faith has been hijacked by sociopaths.

What passes for "conservative Christianity" in America today is actually a very frightening faction of loose cannons, veiled by the respectable patina of megachurches and leaders who look and talk like corporate CEOs.

But peel the varnish away a bit, and one finds what these people really believe is that our time here on God's creation is little more than a brief pit-stop in an earthly hell. They WANT the end of the world to come soon. And they believe it's their mission to hasten this end even sooner.

That's why they're agitating for a full-on war against the Islamic countries - who also have more than their fair share of extremist lunatics that basically want the same quick end to this world.
September 8, 2008

9:25 a.m.

Suggest removal

windskull writes:

If you tilted right ain`t got a refill of zoloft do not read the latest from Frank Rich regarding McCain/Palin they are about to imitate a lead balloon SOR-RYYY!!!
September 8, 2008

9:34 a.m.

Suggest removal

Sensible writes:

The libs are down of the count.

2 PUNCH KNOCK OUT!

bye bye libs...
September 8, 2008

9:35 a.m.

Suggest removal

mark79trans writes:

rick_e_bear writes:

mark79trans writes:

"Nice. A women with a family and a career of substance, and she receives these types of insults."

Hey Mark, why do you think that the McCain campaign won't let Palin talk to any reporters? Do you think that might hurt her in the long run?

---------------------------

I don't know what the campaign is or is not doing...I don't really care to be honest.

However, the media (and some people) are treating this election like an American Idol contest. If the media would like to abandon its sensationalistic reporting of the Vice-Presidential candidate, we would probably have more contact time with her. Either way, she should be treated with respect. The belittling of this women is not being well-received by professional women.

..."Do you think that might hurt her in the long run?" I don't know...to be honest, I don't like the media or fast food politics. Some people want the show and the drama that goes with it.
September 8, 2008

9:38 a.m.

Suggest removal

timeandagain writes:

LOVE THE LIBERAL STRESS. Last week it was "Palin is a laughable choice" and this week is "the honeymoon with Palin will end soon..." Hysterical. The writing is on the wall libs!!!

And - by the way - 11% point swing is more than a bounce!
September 8, 2008

9:38 a.m.

Suggest removal

ActualThinker writes:

Wow, no one has studied a convention bounce before? Or maybe how the electoral college works? Polls are irrelevant until about a week or two before election, even then they have picked wrong in recent elections.
September 8, 2008

9:38 a.m.

Suggest removal

rkymtnskiers writes:

This will obviously be a very tight race with all the (useless) polls swaying both directions. In the end, this country has to pull together. I am willing to bet that if Obama wins, more of the right wing will support him, vs. if McCain wins, the left wing will whine, make excuses (like the icon of liberals last election, Paris Hilton "Vote or Die", who forgot to vote), and threaten to leave the country (Alex Baldwin) and NOT DO IT!
September 8, 2008

9:43 a.m.

Suggest removal

NotUrFriend writes:

PruisGuy,

Let's hope Obama isnt successful at silencing the truth relating to his nutty run of an educational grant group back in the 90's in Chicago.

TALK about a CROOK! Ethics? Looks like Obama may not have any!

Let's hope Obama isn't successful my friend!

I.

McCain '08
September 8, 2008

9:49 a.m.

Suggest removal

Cwillyrun1 writes:

mytwosense, I agree that any religious extremism in America needs to be kept out of decisions for our country. It's a part of the reason our founders kept religion separate from government, even if most of them had strong religious beliefs. But on the other hand, Americans are not going to Iraq telling them to convert to Christianity or else, right?
September 8, 2008

9:49 a.m.

Suggest removal

Sensible writes:

This is an Obamamamama flip-flop the libs didn't see coming!

HA!
September 8, 2008

9:53 a.m.

Suggest removal

Cwillyrun1 writes:

Denverdan, 9/11 happened under Bush......... brilliant deduction on your part. The 1993 WTC attack happened under Clinton. What's the difference in response between the two? Clinton didn't do anything, and on several occasions even knew where binLaden was at. It didn't stop 9/11 from happening. On the other hand, Bush sent troops to Afghanistan to find binLaden, and even if he hasn't been found yet, America hasn't been attacked by spineless cowards again.
September 8, 2008

9:54 a.m.

Suggest removal

Soldier7 writes:

I think the latest polls indicate a very clear fact about
America that the "left" does not want to admit, and that
is this: a majority of Americans still believe in God,
the Second Amendment, family values, and English as
our language.

The bump in the polls you are seeing is from average
Americans who want to believe that McCain will finally
get behind the traditional values of the core of his party.

Here is a news flash to all of you liberals....Most
Americans don't really like the idea of abortion, most
of us DO like the idea of marraige being between and
man and a woman, many of us treasure the right to
own a gun, and yes hunt.

I know that this comes as a shock to all of you in
Boulder, but there are still alot of us "gun carrying"
"God Fearing" types out there. And we vote!
September 8, 2008

9:56 a.m.

Suggest removal

IRUNMAN writes:

Sensible writes:

"This is an Obamamamama flip-flop the libs didn't see coming!

HA!"

For someone with the moniker Sensible, one would assume somewhat intelligent posts.

Clearly not the case.
September 8, 2008

9:59 a.m.

Suggest removal

speakthetruth writes:

I have no flippin' idea how stupid people are. They all need to watch this video before voting...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-R5Vh...
September 8, 2008

10:04 a.m.

Suggest removal

mark79trans writes:

NotUrFriend writes:

PruisGuy,

Let's hope Obama isnt successful at silencing the truth relating to his nutty run of an educational grant group back in the 90's in Chicago.

TALK about a CROOK! Ethics? Looks like Obama may not have any!

Let's hope Obama isn't successful my friend!

I.

McCain '08

--------------

Are you referring to the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC)? That was definitely a mess...what a statesman.
September 8, 2008

10:07 a.m.

Suggest removal

speakthetruth writes:

Polls are absolutely not reliable. They do not call anyone with a cell phone (illegal) which is a large part of the Obama base.
September 8, 2008

10:07 a.m.

Suggest removal

Sensible writes:

YOURUNATTHEMOUTH
September 8, 2008

10:07 a.m.

Suggest removal

mcsame_failin writes:

It is disappointing to see that either the science of statistics is unable to get an accurate reading, does not bother to, or that the American public is so petty and easily manipulated. Three days of low brow, slanderous speaches, intermixed with declarations of McCains noble character, lacking in even the least bit of tangible solutions, and now the polls show a drastic swing of votes in favor of McCain.

To paraphrase and condense McCain's speech: "I will save this country from the evil taxation and traitorous energy policies of the other party [that has not been in power for over eight years] by being an honorable POW and drilling for oil anywhere and everywhere the big oil companies say!" Notice no mention of the multitude of economic troubles threatening the future of this country, except for Oil (oh yeah, it is the Grand Oil Party). "I am going to bring change to Washington (snicker, snicker) by working hand in hand with anyone who is a true patriot (meaning they agree with me)." And now the polls indicate that a majority of Americans think this is the solution?

Come on! Presuming McCain's story is all true, he deserves our nation's sincere respect. But it is a story his past and not a solution for our future. How can anyone cast their vote, a vote for the most critical decision of our time, for something that is not a solution to our problems? Your patriotic duty is to be informed, understand the issues and scrutinize the proposed solutions (of which there needs to be some), and don't base your vote on how cleverly a pit-bull hockey mom can vilify (meaning inaccurate and false character attacks, i.e. defamation of character) the other guy.

McCain Palin == the McSame Failin' old politics that are bringing our nation down to new lows!
September 8, 2008

10:09 a.m.

Suggest removal

MrJim writes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG4fe9...
September 8, 2008

10:12 a.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

Soldier7: "Here is a news flash to all of you liberals....Most
Americans don't really like the idea of abortion, most
of us DO like the idea of marraige being between and
man and a woman, many of us treasure the right to
own a gun, and yes hunt.

I know that this comes as a shock to all of you in
Boulder, but there are still alot of us "gun carrying"
"God Fearing" types out there. And we vote!"

But not every God-fearing gun owner wants religious *extremists* to take over our government. You're really not drawing that distinction at all. And I'm not talking about Palin's abortion views, I'm referencing things like her attempt to ban books from the Wasilla library, and her belief that a pipeline through Alaska is "God's will."

And speaking of hunting, I'm curious...do you support Alaska's reversal of policy on aerial hunting of predators? Hunters like to tell us they are "sportsmen" and "conservationists."

If you are a hunter yourself, how do you square that with picking off wolves and bears from an airplane, with the goal of artificially inflating caribou and moose so that they're easier marks for tourists who come to Alaska to nab a trophy?

The video posted below shows actual footage of this practice. I am curious to hear the opinions of hunters on this forum if you believe this is ethical and in line with your principles as hunters. Warning: the videos have some graphic moments.

http://www.defenders.org/newsroom/ads...

https://secure.defenders.org/site/SPa...
September 8, 2008

10:18 a.m.

Suggest removal

dilligaf writes:

mark79trans
I was just making the Barbie comment off of McCain's history. He came home from Vietnam and wasn't satisfied with a women in a wheel chair so he went and found himself a Barbie. And a rich one at that. Now he went out and found a Barbie in the deep woods of Alaska.
September 8, 2008

10:20 a.m.

Suggest removal

fastnloose writes:

By reading the post from the Dembos,it is clear why they can't win big time elections. They continually under estimate the competition. Get ready for another loss dems, go into executive session, your going to need a lot of excuses.
September 8, 2008

10:24 a.m.

Suggest removal

mcsame_failin writes:

Cheney has endorsed Palin, saying there is nothing that will keep her from filling his shoes. She will be quite capable of abusing the power of the office of Vice President and intimidating anyone who does not agree with her just as well as Cheney. Here resume has clear proof of this:
- Fired everyone in city government who did not support her in the elections.
- Attempted to fire the city librarian for not banning books that she personally found inappropriate.
- Fired the state safety commissioner for not doing as her aides instructed him and fire the ex-husband of her sister.
- Spent 30 minutes vilifying McCain's opponent with slanderous lies and cheap shots.

I am sure this goes on and on. It is no surprise that Cheney likes her.

McCain Palin == McSame Failin' grand old politics!
September 8, 2008

10:25 a.m.

Suggest removal

ashlandbus writes:

Well, if you look by region, which is how the presidency is won, Obama is beating McCain (by a good margin) in all but the South (no surprise there)... be careful how you read the polls.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/108037/Can...
September 8, 2008

10:28 a.m.

Suggest removal

krvus writes:

mytwosense:
how do you arrive at "Religious extremeists"? I'd like to know what your definition is please. There are many people against abortion- does that make all of us "Extrememists"?
And what does people hunting from helicoptes have to do with the argument herein- i.e. the McCain's pop in the polls?
How about Nancy Peliosi stating that obama is "a leader that God has blessed us with at this time."
September 8, 2008

10:29 a.m.

Suggest removal

mark79trans writes:

dilligaf writes:

mark79trans
I was just making the Barbie comment off of McCain's history. He came home from Vietnam and wasn't satisfied with a women in a wheel chair so he went and found himself a Barbie. And a rich one at that. Now he went out and found a Barbie in the deep woods of Alaska.

------------------

People get divorced (whatever) for all kinds of reasons. None of my business nor do I really care...the two of them have been married for almost 30 years. Cindy McCain is a well known philanthropist...to call her a Barbie is wrong. To call Governor Palin a Barbie is wrong too. Women, regardless of their looks, can be professionals and leaders...they don't need this kind of crap.
September 8, 2008

10:31 a.m.

Suggest removal

davies writes:

Too funny. Dilligaffe writes:

"So McCain gets a very good bounce. And 90% of it has a lot to do with the new Barbie. But before the cons get to excited you need to go look at the current Electoral College projections."

Last week he/she was citing the Gallup poll (with Obama ahead) at every opportunity. Now this week the results are flawed I guess. I guess dilligaffe was voting for the Gallup poll, before he/she voted against it.

By the way, if Palin's youthful good looks and lack of experience should count against her, then the same is certainly true of Obama.

Oh but of course it's only the conservatives who are hippocrites, who lie and manipulate the facts, yada yada yada. Liberals are all good people, altruisitic and true of heart. Yup, too funny.
September 8, 2008

10:38 a.m.

Suggest removal

LuvAmerica writes:

Hey did you all see how the feds are bailing out Freddie Mac & Fannie Mae?

Boy, sign me up for 4 more years of that Republican magic! They've done so much for America! Employment, environment, world relations, housing, education, homeland security, economy, civil rights, the Constitution, wars, healthcare, poverty, etc., etc., etc....I'm tired of the country being on the edge of another depression, so let's just seal the deal and plunge on in!

Seriously, is there ANYTHING they haven't ruined? But as long as they keep bringing up homosexuals and abortions, who needs to deal with real issues?
September 8, 2008

10:40 a.m.

Suggest removal

davis_x_machina writes:

Apparently there are still some wingnuts who've just crawled out from under their rock. Every one of the perpetrators of the first WTC attack was tracked down, convicted in regular courts, and sentenced to lengthy prison terms. I believe the ringleader Sheik Omar Abdul Rahman is in Federal prison in North Carolina. And all this was done without the Patriot act, Homeland security or undue civilian surveillance.Why would they need to attack us here when they had 100,000+ targets in a country where we'd created the conditions under which they could operate freely, as well as generate some excellent recruiting ?
September 8, 2008

10:40 a.m.

Suggest removal

Biff writes:

This should be the slogan for those who support Obama:

"I'm lazy...I'm angry......and I'm voting for Obama....."
September 8, 2008

10:41 a.m.

Suggest removal

rickg19611 writes:

"sign me up for 4 more years of that Republican magic! "

Considering that McCain leads Osama bin Obama by 10% among likely voters, America is saying.....

"Give us more of that Republican magic, rather than that Democrat empty suit!"
September 8, 2008

10:42 a.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

krvus writes: "mytwosense: how do you arrive at "Religious extremeists"? I'd like to know what your definition is please. There are many people against abortion- does that make all of us "Extrememists"?"

Did you read all of my posts? I think I was pretty clear in what I outlined as a religious extremist, and nowhere did that include pro-life beliefs or lack thereof.

krvus writes: "And what does people hunting from helicoptes have to do with the argument herein- i.e. the McCain's pop in the polls?"

Nothing, but since when has a thread on the RMN forum actually stayed on track of the original topic?

Anyway, I made the comment to another poster who referenced "God fearing gun-owners" and "hunters" as if they were one homogenous group. I really don't think they are. I know plenty of Christians who are adamantly opposed to today's conservative policies, and many gun-owners and hunters who aren't even Christians.

As for my reference to hunters and the question of aerial hunting...I am curious to learn if all hunters think Palin is "one of them" just because she hunts. It seems to me she holds to a different set of ethics than do hunters who think of themselves as conservationists. I am simply seeking the opinions of actual hunters on that issue.
September 8, 2008

10:45 a.m.

Suggest removal

dilligaf writes:

I believe if you would go see the photo shoot Palin did for Vogue magazine you would see a Barbie. So as long as this women peddles her hypocritical BS she is going to be Barbie. This was nothing more then a big photo shoot for McCain. He has been parading her around the country like Hugh Hefner does with his playmates.
September 8, 2008

10:47 a.m.

Suggest removal

solar_satellite writes:

You can fool most of the people, most of the time; it helps a lot if those people are self-delusional. America is populated not by citizens, but by consumers. Soon we shall endorse a hereditary aristocracy (instead of our hereditary plutocracy). America disproves Marx's scheme of history; we are falling back from bourgeois capitalism into feudalism. Afghanistan is our model for a future society.
September 8, 2008

10:50 a.m.

Suggest removal

dilligaf writes:

mytwosense
Hey maybe her and our current VP can hunt together.
September 8, 2008

10:53 a.m.

Suggest removal

Cwillyrun1 writes:

dilligaf, since you think you know......... why don't you tell us the exact reasons why McCain and his first wife are no longer together. No speculation, just the facts. How well did they get along? Was it McCain or his first wife that fell out of love with the other first, or was it both at the same time? What was their conversation when they decided to end it? Give us some details, all-knowing one!!

If you know much about history, after Vietnam, a large portion of veterans came back and marriages ended. So this one is different because of....... well, how? Tell us.

It's not even close to being the same as Clinton cheating on his wife in the White House, or Edwards cheating on his wife and getting his mistress pregnant.
September 8, 2008

10:56 a.m.

Suggest removal

denverone writes:

Who in this country is raising all these weak Democrats? Somebody kick their Momma's in the butt please. I have heard people with stab wounds whine less than them.

The strong and honorable will always overcome in this country, at least until you idiot Democrats breed your way into the White House.

"Government Please Rescue Me, I am a Democrat!"

You make us all so proud.
September 8, 2008

10:57 a.m.

Suggest removal

rickg19611 writes:

The list of Democrat blunders is so long... but here are the leading contenders for why Democrats have choked this year.....

1. Democrats listened to extremist wings of their party. The nutcases at Daily Kos and party fatcats thought they could get away with nominating a fringe candidate.

2. Democrats forgot that nominating an empty suit with ties to terrorists wasn't a smart idea so soon after 9/11.

3. Democrats got over confident and thought they could sneak an extremist liberal past the American people.

4. Democrats thought that all that was needed was some guy that can only smile and read speeches. Like those sleazeballs you see on late night tv claiming you should pay $19.95 for their DVDs.

5. Democrats thought that America was just a bigger version of Boulder and San Francisco. And are learning the hard way that those two freakshows are no reflection of America.

6. Democrats treated American flags are campaign props and threw them in the trash after their rock concert. And then are baffled that Americans rejected Democrats as quickly as Democrats rejected the American flags.

7. Democrats allowed party bosses to overturn the majority of votes of Democrat primary voters, and allowed rigged caucuses to install Obama as the nominee. Despite election results proving that Obama cannot win with voters, party fatcats installed him even though he lost the majority of Democrat votes in the primaries. Voters are now rejecting the installed puppet.

8. Democrats forgot that MODERATES decide elections... and yet they allowed the Democrat bosses to install the most liberal extremist as their nominee.

9. Democrats thought that Air America was the only opinion that counts. And have learned that there is a reason that it went down the tubes.... because it, and their nominee, are the choice of only a handful of Americans.

10. Democrats forgot that Americans want SUBSTANCE... not style. Which is why they're rejecting the Paris Hilton candidate known as Osama bin Hollywood Obama.

Time for Hillary to fire up her 2012 campaign... since Obama is sinking like a rock in 2008.
September 8, 2008

10:58 a.m.

Suggest removal

Cwillyrun1 writes:

big_d, trickle down economics worked great under Reagan, after the tax and spend policies of Jimmy Carter and his administration. Trickle down brought the economy out of a recession the country was in after Carter's reign.

You haven't proven it, and I haven't seen it proven elsewhere, so the truth must be a lie and tax and spend is the way to go, to the detriment of society.
September 8, 2008

11 a.m.

Suggest removal

krvus writes:

Luv america:
You really have no idea how real estate works in this country do you? So you're going to blame the govt that pubilcally held companies failed? If it were up to me I'd let them fail.
Employment is still in good shape here. Try Germany where it's about 8%.
Environment- everyone is on the bandwagon to save it- the arguement is this global warming garbage that we humans did it in a short 120 years or so.
Education-we spend more on education than we have in history. once the unionized teachers start teaching and stop whining about not making 80,000 for working about 8 months a year...
Homeland security- we haven't been hit since 9/11.
Economy- it's still doing allright- everyone is still shopping- albeit a little less. Contrary to opinion, we are not even in a recession yet. Must have 2 quarters of negative growth for that.
Civil Rights- WOW, you have a black man as nominee on one side and a woman as vice pres on the other. Not to mention Condolezza and Colin Powell in the govt njow and in the past.
The constitution- it's still there protecting us last I knew.
Wars- that's been ever since humans walked the planet. You have only one in your bag for Iraq that its on it's last leg. There will be a pullout agreement before the next inauguration. uyou make it sound like we are attacking everyone we can. What do think about Iran, and the Russians now?
Poverty- another always has been. What are you doing for the homeless? Volunteering? Giving anything to them? Helping in any way?
The probelem that I see here is that libs are just a little too emotional.
The homosexual/abortion thing- so these are the only two issues vaild to republicans you say? Come on. Palin voted to give homosexuals the right for benefits.
September 8, 2008

11:04 a.m.

Suggest removal

ActualThinker writes:

"It's not even close to being the same as Clinton cheating on his wife in the White House, or Edwards cheating on his wife and getting his mistress pregnant."

Ummm yeah it is because he was already shacked up with his current wife well before he was divorced from his previous wife. That is cheating. Classy guy.

Anyway, if you are interested in real poll breakdowns try out www.fivethirtyeight.com it's designed by a baseball statistician that has had enormous success predicting the outcomes of the primaries. The blog portions are left leaning but the data is non-partisan. It's some interesting analysis if you do like polls.
September 8, 2008

11:05 a.m.

Suggest removal

SLoganSt writes:

Barron -
I was as surprised as you to hear this from my friend.
Do you think that I think it is so important that there be a Hillary supporter that switches to McCain/Palin that I would make it up?
September 8, 2008

11:06 a.m.

Suggest removal

dilligaf writes:

Cwillyrun1
Well since the GOP preaches FAMILY VALUES it is hard to believe that this marriage faltered. All I know is if my wife waited for me loyally while I was POW I can't imagine me leaving her in a wheelchair. Besides did you see that Barbie McCain was sporting a $300,000 dollar outfit last Thursday night. My house don't cost that much. But who am I. I'm just a peasant as the GOP see,s me.
September 8, 2008

11:07 a.m.

Suggest removal

Mayor_Quimby writes:

"Polls are absolutely not reliable. They do not call anyone with a cell phone (illegal) which is a large part of the Obama base."

Its not illegal. Gallup and Rasmussen both poll cell phone users in their tracking polls. Dont listen to that idiot Pelosi. She knows sh*t about absolutely nothing.
September 8, 2008

11:07 a.m.

Suggest removal

Cwillyrun1 writes:

Thanks rickybear, that's my point. Some are more worried about McCain and his first wife divorcing.
September 8, 2008

11:07 a.m.

Suggest removal

rickg19611 writes:

Top 5 Reasons that Democrats Can Hit the Panic Button Now.....

1. Obama has proven repeatedly that he fails in debates, where he can't read a speech written by a script (written by one of his handlers) and displayed to him on a teleprompter.

2. Obama only has 55 days to recover from the past 130 days of sliding poll numbers.

3. Obama has Crusty Joe Biden on his ticket with him. And Crusty Joe has proven that he cannot go more than 4 week without some major gaffe. That means 2 more goodies before the election!!

4. Obama and his handlers have shot themselves in the posteriors with their tabloid style attacks on Sarah Palin. Voters are rejecting Obama and his sleaze merchants at a faster pace with each baseless attack on her.

5. Obama has the media stone around his neck as he struggles to stay afloat in the polls. With American considering the media to be sleazier than used car salesmen, Obama has the media as his cheerleaders. And the sinking poll results prove just how devastating that is with American voters!

Oh well.... maybe Democrats can recover by 2012. But considering their refusal to learn from the past repeated disasters, it's unlikely they'll ever learn.
September 8, 2008

11:11 a.m.

Suggest removal

dilligaf writes:

NOVEMBER 4th IS THE ONLY POLL THAT MATTERS.
September 8, 2008

11:11 a.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

Cwillyrun1 writes: "big_d, trickle down economics worked great under Reagan, after the tax and spend policies of Jimmy Carter and his administration. Trickle down brought the economy out of a recession the country was in after Carter's reign."

I personally think that both Republicans and Dems believe Reagan was more fiscally conservative than he really was. For example, I recently read an article in Business Week about some of his economic policies, and was surprised to learn that less deregulation happened under his watch than under the Carter and Clinton administrations.

If you're interested in reading the article, here it is:
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/...

It's actually a pretty objective read, I definitely recommend it. Here's an excerpt:

"Yet despite different fiscal policies, the macroeconomic outcomes were remarkably similar. Under Reagan, lower taxes and a soaring budget deficit produced a growth rate of 3.4%. Under Bill Clinton, higher taxes and a budget surplus generated growth of 3.6%. Throughout both Presidencies, from 1982 to 2000, interest rates fell and the stock market roared. So much for ideology.

There were differences, of course. Under Clinton, unemployment was lower than under Reagan, poverty declined more, and wages rose faster for ordinary workers. But the essential truth remains: Strip away doctrinaire rhetoric, and here's the lesson of nearly two decades of economic activity: Decisive Presidential leadership that tackles the greatest threat of the day produces the policy mix best suited for growth. Sometimes that means lower taxes, sometimes higher. Sometimes it means less regulation, sometimes more."
September 8, 2008

11:11 a.m.

Suggest removal

Cwillyrun1 writes:

rickybear, true that. The federal government should shrink, and both parties are to blame for it's size now.
September 8, 2008

11:15 a.m.

Suggest removal

benkho writes:

A lot of people just don’t understand, they have such of short memory, they forget September 11, and they blame Bush for the entire problem, how about congress? Foreclosure problem? Our country has been in very difficult problem, our president and the government has keep this country saves since 9/11 gives the president credit. President doesn’t write a Law, congress does. Blame congress.
People complaining about trade deficit just drill the oil, it will create a job.
Re:" As for McCain, he's still the same old McSame, voting with Bush almost all the time." mc same?
How about Obama with Jeremiah Wright?
I'll take bush and mc cain anytime, compare with obama and his pastor.
God Bless America
September 8, 2008

11:16 a.m.

Suggest removal

Michael writes:

Left-wing pollsters and even mainstream liberal Dems have calculated the polling points that are going uncounted or being falsely assigned to Obama due to his being black. These are likely voters and Dems who when asked or polled say they will vote for Obama - but never will because of his race. They lie because they do not wish to appear "racist". But just how racist is it when 99% of blacks are voting for Obama because he is black? Is that then not also racist? That number is roughly 4%. That number will either stay home or vote for McCain/Palin. So every time you see the polls, subtract 4% (at least) from Obama and maybe add 2% (+/-) to McCain.
September 8, 2008

11:16 a.m.

Suggest removal

dilligaf writes:

rickg19611
Can you share with us how much of a disaster the election of 1992 & 1994 was for the Democrats?

Clinton 1992
Clinton 1994
Obama 2008
September 8, 2008

11:17 a.m.

Suggest removal

Cwillyrun1 writes:

dilligaf, how do you know McCain's wife's outfit cost that much? And while we're on the cost of outfits, what do you think of the expensive clothes Obama wears, the ones that are far more expensive than anything McCain wears? If you want to go to those lengths, tell me what you think of Bill and Hillary Clinton buying a mansion in New York, and then charging the Secret Service rent to live on the property (somehow, that "rent" comes to the same amount as the mortgage payments) even though taxpayers are paying for their security with the Secret Service? I wonder if this is the America that Michelle Obama is ashamed of?
September 8, 2008

11:17 a.m.

Suggest removal

mark79trans writes:

dilligaf writes:

I believe if you would go see the photo shoot Palin did for Vogue magazine you would see a Barbie. So as long as this women peddles her hypocritical BS she is going to be Barbie. This was nothing more then a big photo shoot for McCain. He has been parading her around the country like Hugh Hefner does with his playmates.

------------

Since the internet photo you refer to is a photo-chopped fake, you may want to look up the real one before you start slandering her. McCain was trying to get away from the DC establishment with his choice...a pretty noble if not practical goal.
September 8, 2008

11:18 a.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

I just want to repeat the section in the excerpt I quoted above that I think is most relevant to discussions of the next President's fiscal policies:

"But the essential truth remains: Strip away doctrinaire rhetoric, and here's the lesson of nearly two decades of economic activity: Decisive Presidential leadership that tackles the greatest threat of the day produces the policy mix best suited for growth. Sometimes that means lower taxes, sometimes higher. Sometimes it means less regulation, sometimes more."

Does anyone agree with that assessment? That solutions depend on the specific economic problem currently at hand?

If so, what do you believe are current problems in our economy, and what solutions would you recommend to the next President?

It may be too late on this thread to engage in such a discussion, but I'm curious if some of the more rational posters would be interested in giving their take.
September 8, 2008

11:20 a.m.

Suggest removal

PonchoVia writes:

This just goes to show how little America trusts or likes McCain - it takes his VP pic to interest the public. Me personally - I'm voting for president - not Vice President. And I'm not voting for McSame....

By the way, what does VP do?
September 8, 2008

11:24 a.m.

Suggest removal

PonchoVia writes:

Here's the "straight talk express". LOL!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnb2Ir...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-R5Vh...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ajm5JT...
September 8, 2008

11:25 a.m.

Suggest removal

lunarella writes:

I am from Arizona and have watched McCain change from a moderate maverick to a right wing Republican. I even used to vote for him but no more. His votes tell the story. 90% with Bush since 2001, 95% with Bush since 2007 and 100% with Bush this year. He also is more and more confused when we see him on television here in Phoenix. He can read ok and deliver some one-liners but can't evaluate or reason well when asked a question for which he does not have a pat answer. He refers the press back to his staff to answer those questions. Just what we want in a president. NOT!
McCain said in 2005 that he opposed Bush' tax cuts because they were too tilted to the wealthy. Now he supports them.
McCain supported the Lieberman/Warner legislation to combat global warming. Now he doesn't.
McCain went from saying he would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade to supporting the repeal, even in cases of rape or incest.
McCain criticized TV preacher Jerry Falwell as an agent of intolerance in 2002, but then gave the commencement address at Falwell's Liberty University in 2006.
McCain said before the war in Iraq that we will win this conflict easily. Four years later, he said he knew the war in Iraq was going to be long and hard and tough.
When Barack Obama talked about going after terrorists in the Pakistani mountains McCain criticized him for it. He's since come to the same conclusion.
On immigration policy, McCain announced in February, 2008 that he would vote against his own bill! Say what?!

And Palin is opposed to abortion even in cases of rape or incest, says that the Iraq War is a mission from God (where have we heard that before), believes that creationism should be taught in schools, and is called the "Killa from Wasilla" in Alaska because she has no regard for the environment. She wants polar bears and beluga whales off the endangered species list so she can drill in their habitats and she has reinstated hunting wolves from the air (after a 20 year ban) because the humans who hunt want more prey (caribou and moose) and the wolves were killing these animals for their own survival. The audacity of those wolves!

Palin and McCain (whose dad died at age 70 and grandad at age 61) also lack interest in higher education. McCain graduated 5th from the bottom of his class, Palin went to 6 colleges in 5 years, Palin's husband never went to college, Palin's oldest son went straight from high school into the military, Plain's daughter is pregnant and plans to marry the father who is an 18 year old redneck. I would hope that someone running for that office would want more for their kids and their families. Imagine how little she wants for your family?
If you liked the past 8 years, vote for McCain who is no maverick (his words don't matter--check the voting record).
September 8, 2008

11:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

mark79trans writes:

dilligaf writes:

rickg19611
Can you share with us how much of a disaster the election of 1992 & 1994 was for the Democrats?

Clinton 1992
Clinton 1994
Obama 2008

-------------------------------

Clinton did not run in 1994; he was a mid-term president. The Congress (house and senate) changed hands that year. Dems held the House of Representatives for decades and Speaker Tom Foley was defeated in his Congressional race.
September 8, 2008

11:27 a.m.

Suggest removal

Michael writes:

"Under Reagan, lower taxes and a soaring budget deficit produced a growth rate of 3.4%. Under Bill Clinton, higher taxes and a budget surplus generated growth of 3.6%. Throughout both Presidencies, from 1982 to 2000, interest rates fell and the stock market roared. So much for ideology."
Really?? So ideaology means nothing - at least if all you care about is domestic economic numbers. What those numbers FAIL MISERABLY to do is explain that after 8 years under Reagan the US military was strong, vibrant, well staffed, well armed, and the USSR had imploded - and NO, NO, NO it would NOT have happened anyway. After 8 years of Clinton al-Qaida had grown stronger and more bold with every succeeding attack on US interests. There is a direct line going back to the first WTC attack right up to 9.11. You cannot just lead domestically - as the Dems can do on occassion. A POTUS has to lead internationally and sometimes drag our miserable and cowardly allies into doing the right thing - or have the courage to do it alone if they are too cowardly, as was the case with Saddam Hussein.
September 8, 2008

11:27 a.m.

Suggest removal

SenWidestance writes:

USA Today/Gallup is an outlier poll...10% is a misnomer and comes from biased data.
Educate your ignorant lipsticked asses: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/0...
September 8, 2008

11:29 a.m.

Suggest removal

jonnyrotten writes:

Lets keep the "Extreemists" out of the White House.

The candidate that has promised to transcend race and racism to unite all Americans for change, spoke (until just recently) with admiration about his pastor, a man that brought him to Christianity, married him, preached to him for about twenty years, baptized his children, took his donations of more than $22,000.00 (in one year), and prayed with him before the good Senator started his quest for the White House.

20 years of anti-American and racist comments “preached” from the pulpit of his church in the name of God.

If you think Sarah Palin is an "Extreemist" you should re-read some of the Reverend Jeramiah Wright’s sermons, or watch the videos and listen to the bile this man has dished out for years in God’s name.

One example:

Reverend Wright told his congregation that the Government of the United States was waging a war of genocide against people of color using HIV/AIDS.

This came from the religious advisor of a candidate for President of the United States who told us he would unite us and rise above race and racism and condemn those that were divisive.
September 8, 2008

11:29 a.m.

Suggest removal

bblessings writes:

Here’s my biggest issue with this election:

I have read over and over again how uneducated, how stupid we all must be if we vote for McCain-Palin.

Let’s try this on for size. Just because I’m for a reduced government, reduced taxes, and want to say “no” to higher taxes, it does not make me uneducated. Just because I feel that Americans should make their own way in today’s world, and not have the government hand them everything without working for it, does not make me stupid.

This is merely a matter of what matters to you, does not matter to me, and vice versa. You vote for the guy that best represents your views, and THAT is why I’m voting for McCain-Palin.
September 8, 2008

11:32 a.m.

Suggest removal

mcsame_failin writes:

The True Top 5 Reasons that Democrats Can Hit the Panic Button Now.....

1. No matter how insightful and inspiring Obama is in speeches and in the debates, Americans will believe any of the bombastic lies the Republicans tell them.

2. The Republicans have the infrastructure in place to manipulate the polls both in the media and the elections and the 55 days left in the election are not enough for the Democrats to discover or counteract this effectively.

3. Though Palin has serious credibility issues, the Republican disinformation and legal obfuscation machine will keep this from being revealed before the election, and after the election, Palin will be able to abuse the power of the VP to stop this from ever being resolved legally.

4. The Republicans have developed very sophisticated methods for twisting the words of the free press to make anyone who questions them on the real issues and their credentials look like they are being unfair and sleazy.

5. American voters know better than to read/watch multiple news sources to get a complete and well informed picture of the issues. I mean who cares about what is written in those little unknown tabloids, Time and News Week. All the American public really cares about is an entertaining, professional-wrestling style spectacle, talking smack about the other guy.

It is too audacious to hope that a majority of Americans will start reading the news and scrutinizing the candidates based on the issues.
September 8, 2008

11:33 a.m.

Suggest removal

PonchoVia writes:

bblessings:

If you make over $600k/year, I can see why the tax plans of the two candidates may sway you toward McCain. But, if you're middle to lower class the tax plans should not be an issue... Please see here:

http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/11/news/...
September 8, 2008

11:34 a.m.

Suggest removal

rickg19611 writes:

"Can you share with us how much of a disaster the election of 1992 & 1994 was for the Democrats?"

Why limit it to two elections? Check out the past 40 years of presidential elections....

1968 - Democrats self destructed.
1972 - Democrats nominated an extreme leftist (aka McGovern Obama) and were wiped out by a landslide
1976 - Democrats, despite having the best conditions to win in a century, barely won.
1980 - Americans realized their mistake of 76 and booted Democrats in a landslide
1984 - Democrats barely managed to win 1 state. 49 others laughed at Democrats!!
1988 - Democrats again had great conditions and managed to nominate a dud. Even Democrats admit that was a disaster.
1992 - Despite having all factors in their favor in 1992, Democrats needed Ross Perot in the race in order to barely squeak out a win. Without Perot, Clinton would have lost by 6% points.
1996 - Clinton couldn't even manage to exceed 50% of the votes, even though he faced one of the boringest opponents around.
2000 - Democrats got trounced again, despite
2004 - Democrats thought that nominating a liberal that had served in the military would fool Americans. Voters laughed Kerry back to his windsurf board.
2008 - Obama is sinking faster than a lead balloon.

Oh well..... there's always 2012. Maybe Democrats can finally turn around their disastrous record of losing 70% of the presidential elections over the past 44 years.
September 8, 2008

11:34 a.m.

Suggest removal

freedomfighter1 writes:

Another 4 years, are you guys nuts? Maybe I'll have to look into a Canadian visa, because I want to live in a free country.
September 8, 2008

11:37 a.m.

Suggest removal

PonchoVia writes:

As an Obama supporter, if anything the latest bouncing poll numbers raise my confidence in Obama. It tells me that the American public doesn't like McCain - that the only way McCain can get his numbers up is through his VP. But who votes for VP? We're voting for president, not VP. America does not trust McCain.
September 8, 2008

11:39 a.m.

Suggest removal

Cwillyrun1 writes:

hey poncho, does your link also include the tax plans the Democrats plan to heap on America if Obama becomes President? Not just Obama's plans, but the Democratic controlled legislature.........
September 8, 2008

11:41 a.m.

Suggest removal

bblessings writes:

PonchoVia,

You’ll be happy to know that I’m the run-of-the-mill, every-day American whose household brings in between $60,000 and $80,000 a year. I will confess that I have not done the research myself concerning Obama’s tax plan but I do know that his plan will have a “trickle down” effect on everyone else. If you think small and big businesses are going to eat those taxes themselves, and NOT pass the increases down to the consumers, then you’re sadly mistaken, my friend. We will ALL be paying the price for Obama’s new tax plans.

I’ve been watching the left vs. right dialogue for weeks and quite frankly, none of us are going to change the other’s minds. I’m not even going to try… I just know how I feel about the issues and I think McCain-Palin are the stronger candidates.
September 8, 2008

11:44 a.m.

Suggest removal

Barron writes:

someone wrote: "Barron, I find your biased comment interesting. In my circle, successful, educated, realistic, responsible people with IQ > shoe size, I have yet to find a single person who is not voting for McCain. It is obvious that those who want bigger government, higher taxes, higher energy costs, who are or have been on some sort of social welfare programs, will vote for Obama, vs. those who know that the only way to succeed in life is to work for it, will vote for McCain."

someone: Are you an elitest? Do you know anyone who isn't successful, educated, realistist (HA HA!!! that one was really funny and doesn't tiptoe around on pinpoint sized feet? Because I have plenty of friends like you describe, and also many who work really hard and struggle to pay for the exhorbitant taxes and gas prices we are now throwing at Iraq so the war billionaires can get richer. You probably work at Halliburton. That old, tired rhetoric about people getting rich on welfare really shows how out of touch you are - I hardly think that welfare pays anyone enough to even live on, much less get rich on. Try stepping off your high horse and talking to a member of the unwashed masses - you won't get dirty.
September 8, 2008

11:44 a.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

Michael writes: "So ideaology means nothing - at least if all you care about is domestic economic numbers. What those numbers FAIL MISERABLY to do is explain that after 8 years under Reagan the US military was strong, vibrant, well staffed, well armed, and the USSR had imploded - and NO, NO, NO it would NOT have happened anyway."

This is such a knee-jerk reaction to the article, which is SOLELY ABOUT Reagan's economic legacy. It's not an in-depth article about his entire presidency.

But since you mention the military, my understanding is that it's growth somewhat stabilized under Reagan. Supposedly, he reigned in military spending.

Michael writes: "After 8 years of Clinton al-Qaida had grown stronger and more bold with every succeeding attack on US interests. There is a direct line going back to the first WTC attack right up to 9.11."

Well, and after a devastating attack that killed thousands of Americans under Bush's watch, and seven years after that attack, al-Qaeda is still around and their ringleader still hasn't been caught.

So what's your point? That Clinton failed at national security? So did Bush. Even if we haven't had an attack of that magnitude since, it nevertheless happened under his watch, eight months after he was sworn in, after he was given security briefings warning about bin Laden, and after he took more vacation days during his first year in office than any other president in history.
September 8, 2008

11:45 a.m.

Suggest removal

ifyem writes:

I love the "experience" argument that you Right-Wingers keep bringing up. Well, if you knuckleheads remember correctly, wasn't W governor of Texas for 6 years before he became president, and look how his presidency has turned out!!! The wilfull blindness exhibited by the right reminds me of hmmmmm.....Nazi Germany!!!!
September 8, 2008

11:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

leatherneck writes:

Loven it...
I knew this story would make the libs have a fit. The left is definitely up in arms today; don't worry Democrats you will have another 4 years of therapy to help, come down off the ledge.
The Big O is finished...

McCain / Palin 08
September 8, 2008

11:47 a.m.

Suggest removal

PonchoVia writes:

bblessings:

I want a smaller government as much as the next guy, but the past 8 years have seen nothing but fiscal irresponsibility. I simply don't trust McCain to keep spending down; and, if by chance he does, any money saved in domestic programs I believe will be spent on the war maching. Personally, I'd rather money be spent, if at all, on US citizens, not foreign citizens and wars.

I don't see how anyone could trust McCain after watching these videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnb2Ir...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-R5Vh...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ajm5JT...

If you can, good luck with that decision.
September 8, 2008

11:49 a.m.

Suggest removal

Barron writes:

cwilly wrote: "Barron......... you don't know many people then, do you? I know quite a few that will vote for McCain/Palin and no, they're not Republicans either. They don't believe someone who doesn't have a clue about running anything at an executive level should be the one to run our country."

cwilly, I humbly suggest you do a little more "vetting" on your candidate before you go around belittling other people's "executive level experience." Most people who work in large corporations have more "executive level experience" than Sarah Palin. There are more bears and moose in Alaska than people (not that she cares) - it's not a daunting job, and when she was mayor of Wasilla it was only part time. Sometimes, being intelligent actually trumps executive level experience.
September 8, 2008

11:49 a.m.

Suggest removal

PonchoVia writes:

Cwilly: you bring up a different issue. I'm just putting up the facts about McCain's and Obama's tax plans. The facts undermine the fear mongering in McCain's adds. The truth is that middle class and lower class Americans do better under Obama's plan.
September 8, 2008

11:52 a.m.

Suggest removal

Barron writes:

cwilly writes: "With Obama, his wife Michelle is "off limits". Yet for the Democrats, Palin's family is fair game..... McCain's wife is fair game. Why should the Democratic party talk about the subjects at hand when all they want to do is attack and degrade their opponents in ways they don't want to be attacked back? Hypocritical...... the Democrats true slogan!"

cwilly, please show me where the Democrats are attacking Palin's family, I missed that. I clearly heard Obama say family is off limits, meaning Palin's family, so I'm not seeing what you are describing, please provide some reference points. Now, I will say that everywhere I look I read something about Palin herself that just makes me shake my head and question what the heck McCain was thinking when he pulled her out of his hat (dementia?).
September 8, 2008

11:56 a.m.

Suggest removal

leatherneck writes:

PonchoVia: You are so consumed with hate.....Let it go... People are going to vote the way they want to. You’re not going to change anyone’s mind.
youtube has video of 911 being a US government conspiracy to kill our own citizens too...but I bet you believe that also
September 8, 2008

11:57 a.m.

Suggest removal

mcsame_failin writes:

bblessings,

The main point of much of the discussion here is to try to get reasonable people to take the time to read the news, learn where the candidates stand on the issues, investigate for yourself any credibility issues, and base your decision on an honest assessment of the evidence before voting. In doing so, many on this blog will very likely change their vote, if they can set aside their own emotional bias and do the right thing for the future of this nation.
September 8, 2008

11:59 a.m.

Suggest removal

PonchoVia writes:

leatherneck, one of your allies has the name "Libtards_R_idiots". And you say I'm consumed with hate? I'm not consume with hate at all. I'm simply putting up facts. The youtube vids I linked to are simply McCain in his own words - no characterization or "conspiracy" judgments. Simple facts.
September 8, 2008

12:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

H20 writes:

McCain has received his post convention bounce. Remember folks Palin has not sat down and conducted a face-to-face interview. Senior staff say she's not ready yet. Well if your going to be VP of the USA with McCains personal health record, you sure as hell better be ready!!!! Lets see if she has what it takes!! Teleprompters and coaching work wonders for everyone...
September 8, 2008

12:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

ifyem writes:

Yeah Libtards, I am sure that you and everyone else voting republican is a small business owner...Maybe there are other influences involved like hmmm...the middle-class fear of higher taxes perpetuated by the Republican party when in actuality Obama will be lowering taxes on middle-class. Let's not also forget so-called family values that Palin and all the other hypocritical right-wingers preach which certain knuckleheads seem to care more about than having good jobs and quality education for their children. If the majority of middle-class Americans took their blinders off, they would probably realize that Obama's fiscal platform will benefit them more in the long-run than the old guy and the chick's platform.
September 8, 2008

12:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

souzasounds writes:

With all the Fake "liberal media" bias touted by everyone, it is no wonder Mccain is ahead. All of our media is bending over backwards to accommodate the corporate republicans. Media everywhere has been running scared ever since the Rethug convention and their macho talk. The Democratic convention lasted 4 days and stopped at midnight August 28th! The rethud convention started the next morning and continues with coverage of their convention, with footage airing non-stop to this day - 11 days now and running! When does their convention coverage stop? The Republicons have a had very successful propaganda thing going with this fake "liberal media" thing. Go ahead American media - give the presidency to another liar!
September 8, 2008

12:10 p.m.

Suggest removal

LOUIE writes:

Told you so, it was just a matter of time. People are scared, the democrats had an election in the bag with Bush's historically low approval ratings; so what do they do? Reverse the age old formula and put inexperence at the top of the ticket and shored it up with experence as second in command. The foolishness of the democrats allowed Mc Cain a great chance to take it all. Obama should have been a vice president, with someone powerful like Hillary on the top slot. She could beat Mc Cain and has the experence and intelligence to do so. This country isn't in great shape, why would the democrats chance the election with an inexperenced kid when America is scared? I knew Mr. Obama would win his party early on and said so, I also said it would be foolish of them to run a kid with no experence, even using the words of his own running mate and others in his party, in the top slot. This election was the democrats to lose, and they are doing a great job of it!
September 8, 2008

12:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

farmgrl writes:

This is turning into high school student council elections all over again. Shouldn't we be voting the issues and not for the most popular girl?

I was very much in Hillary's corner, but I will NOT vote republican just because McCain picked a female running mate. The republican party does not stand for me and I refuse to vote for more of the same Washington "all for the rich" policies that we've seen the past 4 years. I may not agree with everything Obama has said and done, but he's a far better representative of what I believe in than the republicans.

Think it over very well before marking your ballot this fall. This could be one of the most important choices you ever make. Knee-jerk reactions could be very harmful to our country.
September 8, 2008

12:15 p.m.

Suggest removal

LOUIE writes:

Charles_B, you been playing under my skirt long enough to know big boy!
September 8, 2008

12:20 p.m.

Suggest removal

bblessings writes:

I sincerely, sincerely hope that there are no voters out there making their presidential vote based on reading these comments. There are so many biased, unsubstantiated innuendos and lies on here… from both sides. (And no, I’m not going to go to YouTube to either negate the other candidate or support my decisions. I get enough of that stuff from so-called campaign ads on my TV.)

I really hope that everyone will go out and do the research themselves. Decide what matters most to you, do the research, and decide for yourself!
September 8, 2008

12:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

H20 writes:

bblessings you got that right!!!
September 8, 2008

12:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

ActualThinker writes:

"Just because I’m for a reduced government, reduced taxes, and want to say “no” to higher taxes, it does not make me uneducated. Just because I feel that Americans should make their own way in today’s world, and not have the government hand them everything without working for it, does not make me stupid."

You are absolutely right. The problem is that republicans haven't been this way since BEFORE Reagan. That's why I'm very liberal now but a registered independent in hopes that someday the republican party will get back to responsible spending and small hands off government. When they do get back to the party you mentioned sign me up, but if they are going to just be bad versions of democrats then I'll take the guys that will take care of the middle class better.
September 8, 2008

12:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

Cwillyrun1 writes:

Barron......... being the Governor of Alaska has quite a bit more responsibility than "community organizers" and it also has more executive experience than Obama has as a Senator. And she's only running as VP, not President. Those are what we like to look at as facts, so try vetting your own candidate first. What I find amusing is people ignore the fact that as Governor of Alaska she stood up to "big oil", especially in a state where big oil is the dominant employer.

Sorry you missed the attacks on Palin, but go figure. Anything negative against Republicans just never happened, according to those who don't want to be informed, but if a Democrat is attacked, those same people are all over it. Obama said his wife was off limits........ not Palin's family and not Cindy McCain.
September 8, 2008

12:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

notknowitall writes:

You all have to be serious? You are casting your votes for a party that spouts nothing but negatives and lies? I hope that if your candidates win, you will realize how stupid and dumb you have been for 3 Bush terms in a row.
Please do some research and truly vote for the most qualified instead of what the candidates look like. This is not supposed to be a choice between looks versus qualifications.
OBAMA 08
September 8, 2008

12:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

GraceUnderPressure writes:

I agree with bblessings!!!!! I have been researching and doing my part. You can't judge these candidates by what the gross left media want's to report. The GOP is strong. We will prevail!
September 8, 2008

12:33 p.m.

Suggest removal

Cwillyrun1 writes:

H2O, they work well for Obama, don't they? Take those away, and he's not very articulate on national subjects. Why is it Obama is afraid of town-hall style debates with McCain? No need to answer..... we already know it's because without a prepared speech in hand, Obama is lost.
September 8, 2008

12:37 p.m.

Mayor_Quimby writes:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
September 8, 2008

12:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

leatherneck writes:

Obama's lates blunder, he can not keep his foot out of his mouth.
People are seeing right through his lies

"Let's not play games," he said. "What I was suggesting -- you're absolutely right that John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith. And you're absolutely right that that has not come."
Mr. Stephanopoulos interrupted with, "Christian faith."
"Christian faith," Mr. Obama said quickly. "Well, what I'm saying is that he hasn't suggested that I'm a Muslim. And I think that his campaign's upper echelons have not, either. What I think is fair to say is that, coming out of the Republican camp, there have been efforts to suggest that perhaps I'm not who I say I am when it comes to my faith -- something which I find deeply offensive, and that has been going on for a pretty long time."

? So Obama, What are you ?? Christian or Muslim??
September 8, 2008

12:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

Cwillyrun1 writes: "What I find amusing is people ignore the fact that as Governor of Alaska she stood up to "big oil", especially in a state where big oil is the dominant employer."

More specifically, she taxed Big Oil. And you are right to suggest it's hypocritical of liberals to ignore that. However, it's also hypocritical for conservatives to suddenly praise Palin for taxing Big Oil when they usually hotly contest any additional taxing on this industry.

By the way, are you now in support of larger taxes on Big Oil?
September 8, 2008

12:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

Barron writes:

Wow Quimby, what an intelligent, well thought out posting. you are a real thinker - I bet I know who you are voting for...

cwilly, sorry but we are going to continue to disagree. Please provide me with your reference points about how Palin stood up to big oil, so I can at least see your side of it. As far as Obama saying family was off limits, it was a direct result of the media firestorm after Palin announced her daughter's pregnancy. The comment was to say "leave our families out of this."
September 8, 2008

12:45 p.m.

Suggest removal

GraceUnderPressure writes:

Attention rick_e_bear......Yes, I am a life long Republican. And a Political Science Major. I voted for Reagan. Were you even born then??!!!!!!!! You are out of your element.
September 8, 2008

12:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

mcsame_failin writes:

bblessings,

No one is suggesting that voters base their decision on YouTube (I have not mentioned or pointed to a YouTube link), but rather that they read/listen to multiple sources and do thorough research. You said that you also hope people do the research, and on that we are in agreement.

When you look in depth at the issues and candidates you may find that the words spoken at the RNC, that are getting people all fired up, are at best empty and at worst dangerous to our future. Such words are not bipartisan, are not words of change, and do nothing to pose solutions to our problems. The speeches at the RNC in of themselves contradict McCain's message of change and non-partisan progress. Once you add in the legitimate reporting of the issues (I find the petty focus on Palin's family highly repugnant and do not give it any consideration) and the candidates' past political records, McCain and Palin are not worthy of our trust or our vote. Of course, that is your decision, and with sincere respect I wish you a clear and informed mind when you make it.
September 8, 2008

12:48 p.m.

Suggest removal

DenverDan writes:

Cwillyrun1, tards_R_Idiots and shags

This is the starting line-up for a gay Gladiators show with Haggard as host. You fools Voted for Bush TWICE that tells me that you can’t admit you made a mistake, but you are going to do it again just because your party comes first. You sad dorks!!
September 8, 2008

12:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

notknowitall writes:

Just who is running for President on the GOP side? Seems like all we hear is Palin, Palin, and more Palin! Give me a break.
Are all you so ignorant that you don't see the facts because of the looks of a loser from Alaska?
September 8, 2008

12:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

bblessings writes:

“GraceUnderPressure writes:
"I agree with bblessings!!!!! I have been researching and doing my part. You can't judge these candidates by what the gross left media want's to report. The GOP is strong. We will prevail!"

You've just proved that you are nothing more than part of the republican propaganda machine. The media is owned by large corporations. The report things biased by nothing more than ratings.”

rick_e_bear,
This is exactly what I'm referring to! Just because I don't agree with you, my mind is being controlled by some "left-wing, right-wing" conspiracy theory. Why can't you admit that some of us who are choosing to vote for McCain-Palin have done our OWN research and have decided to vote with our own consciousness and convictions? You go right and ahead and vote for your convictions; at least we'll both be able to say that we voted with integrity. Just stop knocking my decision because it doesn't line up with yours.
September 8, 2008

12:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

COnative1966 writes:

Do all you Obama supporters still think McCain will drop Sara Palin from the ticket?

What's your next rumor to try to smear her? She had a three-eyed martian baby in high school?

It's going to be really fun watching the Obama folks lose their minds. Their actions will speak volumes about the loony left.
September 8, 2008

12:54 p.m.

Suggest removal

bblessings writes:

mcsame_failin,
I'm not saying that you pointed out a YouTube video to me, personally or anyone else for that matter. I just find it interesting that links to YouTube are being thrown all over this chat board (again, from both sides) and they're nothing more than the "campaign ads" we see on TV. I haven't seen anything that has the real substance that one can only get from doing research themselves.
September 8, 2008

12:56 p.m.

Cwillyrun1 writes:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
September 8, 2008

12:57 p.m.

Suggest removal

ifyem writes:

Republicans are HYPOCRITES, HYPOCRITES, HYPOCRITES, HYPOCRITES, HYPOCRITES.... sorry Mayor Quimby, but us "libs" actually have a life and can't type like 4th graders all day...Get a day job buddy!!!
September 8, 2008

12:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

mcsame_failin writes:

leatherneck,

You prove Obama's point with poignant irony:
------------
"What I think is fair to say is that, coming out of the Republican camp, there have been efforts to suggest that perhaps I'm not who I say I am when it comes to my faith -- something which I find deeply offensive, and that has been going on for a pretty long time."

? So Obama, What are you ?? Christian or Muslim??
-------------
How is this type of defamation of character acceptable, when the Republican base denounces so emphatically similar below the belt attacks against Palin. Please, lets stick to the issues that matter for the future of our nation.
September 8, 2008

1 p.m.

Suggest removal

leatherneck writes:

ifyem:Hypocrites Hu?
please refer to my post at 12:39

What would Obama be?
September 8, 2008

1:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

rickg19611 writes:

Oops.... the latest excuse used by Obama supporters turns out to be as big a flop as their candidate!!!!!

Obama supporters, watching their candidate sink deeper and deeper with each new poll over the past 4 months, have resorted to the desperate claim that "cellphones" make the polls meaningless.

Of course, any intelligent observer knows that such claims are idiotic, since major polling organizations DO INCLUDE cell phone users in their polling results, the desperate idiots cling to their fantasy that polls don't reflect cell phone users.

Now, even the New York Times is admitting that the kooks of Obama's sinking support groups are ignorant of the facts about it.

To educate the ignorant.....

FACT: Major polling organizations DO INCLUDE cell phone users, including those who are cellphone ONLY owners, in the polling results!

FACT: Research done by the polling organizations have shown that for voters who own BOTH a cellphone and landline, there is NO DIFFERENCE in whether cellphone numbers are used or not in polling results.

FACT: When citizens who are cellphone users ONLY (no landline owned) are included, there is a "minor" effect, however those who are cellphone only respondents are NOT LIKELY TO VOTE anyway!!!!!

FACT: Lesson for the Obamanuts.... you can own 100% of the nonvoting public's support and end up with ZERO votes as a result.

No wonder Democrats are reaching for the panic button.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/20...
September 8, 2008

1:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

leatherneck writes:

mcsame_failin: Nice attempt at Damage Control.
The point was he doesn't know if he is Muslim or Christian. ??? BS I'm betting Muslim
"John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith."
September 8, 2008

1:05 p.m.

Suggest removal

Cwillyrun1 writes:

Charles, do you believe having a pregnant teenager means you should force her to abort so you don't punish her with that pregnancy, like Obama has said he would do if his teenage daughter got pregnant?

The privacy for Palin's family comes about in the same sense that it does for Obama's wife, and the attempt you made to twist it into what you did was pretty weak. I'm not voting for a candidate based off of his or her family members.
September 8, 2008

1:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

mcsame_failin writes:

rickg19611,

You are really confusing me, what is the issue here? I am not sure how your "FACTS" about cell phones and polling have anything to do with the issues. Just more of the McSame Failin' political obfuscation tactics, it seems.
September 8, 2008

1:07 p.m.

Suggest removal

ifyem writes:

Yeah great point Leatherneck!!! You are quite the chucklehead!! Ignore everything about Palin and McCain's records and focus on Obama's response to a question about his faith!! Lets focus on the issues buddy!! Oh wait, I forgot that republicans are incapable of formulating substantive arguments!! Just look at their attempts of dodging the issues on this forum!!
September 8, 2008

1:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

Cwilly, come on. Obama never said he would force his daughter to abort.
September 8, 2008

1:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

Cwillyrun1 writes:

mytwosense, I'm in favor of not providing tax credits to "big oil". I'm not familiar with the reasons Palin wanted higher taxes on "big oil" in Alaska, but I'm not in favor of them if they raise prices at the pump and if they're solely used as a reason to punish "big oil" for their profits, such as the Democrats want.
September 8, 2008

1:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

mcsame_failin writes:

leatherneck,

The interview segment that you posted doesn't have to do with whether he is Muslim, but whether McCain has accused him of being Muslim. Obama is saying that McCain himself has not made such a slanderous accusation, but that his supporters are trying to use the suggestion that he is Muslim as a misinformation tactic to distract them from focusing on the issues where McCain is weak.

My point is that you proved Obama correct.

Thank you.
September 8, 2008

1:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

rickg19611 writes:

ROFLMAO at Obama kooks!

Desperate to explain away their sinking candidate, some nuts for Obama have tried to lie and claim that the Gallup poll showing Obama losing should not be considered accurate.... since they claim that it doesn't include cell phone users.

A simple reading of the Gallup poll proves that the Obama supporters are either liars or ignorant.....

""Interviews are conducted with respondents on land-line telephones (for respondents with a land-line telephone) and cellular phones (for respondents who are cell-phone only)."

http://www.gallup.com/poll/110110/Gal...

So much for that idiotic excuse by the Obama kooks.
September 8, 2008

1:14 p.m.

Suggest removal

leatherneck writes:

ifyem: Issues? Hu? How the Fisa Bill?? How did the Big O vote on that Far Far right Bill??
September 8, 2008

1:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

Cwillyrun1 writes:

Actually mytwosense...... he said he wouldn't subject his daughter to a teenage pregnancy like Palin's daughter. What's the choice she's given by Obama then? He may not be doing it himself, but he's not giving her a choice, is he?
September 8, 2008

1:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

leatherneck writes:

mcsame_failin: What a croc....
September 8, 2008

1:19 p.m.

Suggest removal

H20 writes:

rickg19611 your argument does not make since???????
September 8, 2008

1:20 p.m.

Suggest removal

Cwillyrun1 writes:

rick, I know for a fact that the polls include cell phone calls....... I've had two of them to my cell phone. Shoots that Democratic conspiracy theory down.
September 8, 2008

1:20 p.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

Cwillyrun1 writes: "Actually mytwosense...... he said he wouldn't subject his daughter to a teenage pregnancy like Palin's daughter. What's the choice she's given by Obama then? He may not be doing it himself, but he's not giving her a choice, is he?"

Well, what did he actually say? You're kind of deciding what he meant on your own. That's really the same as people who claim Palin would force her daughter to have a baby even if she was impregnated through rape. The reality is, when Palin was asked the question if she is pro-life even in matters of rape, she simply answered "Again, I choose life."

Kind of hard to deduce from that she would "force" her daughter to have the baby, just as it's a stretch to deduce Obama's comment meant he would "force" his daughter to have an abortion.
September 8, 2008

1:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

leatherneck writes:

ifyem : ??I am still waiting??
September 8, 2008

1:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

Cwillyrun1 writes: "mytwosense, I'm in favor of not providing tax credits to "big oil". I'm not familiar with the reasons Palin wanted higher taxes on "big oil" in Alaska"

Ok, but don't you think you should get familiar on the subject if you're going to question Dems who ignore Palin "standing up" to Big Oil? :)

Anyway, my understanding is that the tax subsequently brought in billions of dollars in revenue to Alaska, some of which was directly given back to citizens of Alaska.

Frankly, that's one of the few things I do support Palin on. I've thought for some time now that a portion of corporate taxes should be given back to citizens. Why shouldn't citizens in ALL states get at least some royalties from the profits their state's resources bring in?

Unfortunately, neither party has ever taken up this topic for discussion, or if they have, the press hasn't covered it. Alaska, as far as I know, is the only state that gives such royalties.

However, it's my understanding that Obama does plan something similar from any "windfall" profit taxation on Big Oil. I believe he plans to give a $1000 energy tax credit to every US citizen out of such a tax, if it goes through. And, Palin did much the same thing when she taxed Big Oil in Alaska, but citizens got something like $3K+ back.
September 8, 2008

1:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

Cowboy63 writes:

Barron writes: "I personally don't know a single person who tells me with a straight face that they're voting McCain. Nobody called me to ask."

Barron - sounds like you've been hanging out in the RMN break room too long.

Looks like the coronation of His Obamaness will be postponed indefinitely.

Hail to the CHIEF! McCain/Palin '08!
September 8, 2008

1:32 p.m.

Suggest removal

imPatrickBateman writes:

"McCain tops Obama in latest Gallup Poll"

I'd like to point out that inn the grand scheme of things, this means absolutely nothing.
September 8, 2008

1:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

Colorado8888 writes:

OBAMA & McCAIN: PAWNS OF THE GLOBAL ELITE

By Patrick Wood

Will it matter if Obama or McCain are elected in November? Hardly.

Both are rigidly backed by important members of the Trilateral Commission who hijacked the Executive Branch of the U.S. government starting in 1976 with the election of Jimmy Carter.

In Obama’s case, Zbigniew Brzezinski (co-founder of the Commission in 1973) is emerging as his principal advisor on foreign policy. Ex-Fed Chairman Paul Volker has made a once-in-a-lifetime, glowing endorsement of Obama. Madelyn Albright is seen sitting next to Obama in several conferences. Shoot, even Jimmy Carter himself endorses Obama. All are top members of the Commission.

John McCain is being supported by several Trilateral Commission giants including: Henry Kissinger, George Schultz, Lawrence Eagleburger and Alexander Haig. All of these are ex-Secretaries of State who issued a joint endorsement of McCain early-on in his campaign.

And, [unfortunately] unless Obama shoots both of his own feet before the general presidential election in November, he is most likely to be the next president of the United States.

You would think that Americans would want to know who the “special interests” are that are embodied by this Trilateral Commission, and what they intend to do or not do with America.

http://www.augustreview.com/news_comm...

http://www.stopthenorthamericanunion....
September 8, 2008

1:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

Cowboy63 writes:

speakthetruth writes: "They do not call anyone with a cell phone (illegal) which is a large part of the Obama base."

speakthetruth - they are not THAT big a part of Obama's base.

No matter what the pols say today the winner (probably McCain) will win with a 50.5 to 49.5 margin. Either McCain or Obama will need to be able to work with the opposite party if he wants to accomplish ANYTHING. McCain has already said he will have democrats in his Cabinet. It would be comforting if Obama could come out and make the same assurance (Republicans in his Cabinet).

For all this furor over the Sarah Palin nomination... people need to SIMMER DOWN, NOW! When was the last time a VP ever had to do anything? (that's right, I couldn't remember either). This ridiculous talk about how "McCain could drop dead at any moment"... That is always the case, but RARELY an issue. NEWS FLASH: The last President to "drop dead" in office was JFK in '63 - and age had nothing to do with it.

People will either vote for or against McCain for being McCain - he's the one running for President, not Sarah Palin (yet).
September 8, 2008

1:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

LOUIE writes:

No, polls don't really mean much in the final tally of things, November is the real enchilada. However, I like polls because even with the error margins, it give us all some kind of indication, even though polls have proven to be wrong in the past. I always reflect back to Truman holding up the paper with the headline "Dewey Wins". Still polls are the only indicators we have prior to the vote itself. I think Americans are scared, we have a bad economy, a mean war that has drained our national treasury, and a sitting president said to be the most unpopular in history. I thought this election was always the democrats to win; but then they went an put up a man who is so inexperenced, that America will go with the one who makes them feel secure. A young kid spouting change with no experence is to big a risk for many voters in such uncertain times. Secondly it's not being sold well; Obama showed his own lack of confidence in his inexperence when he shored up his ticket with Biden. Democrats should have ran Obama as a vice president not a president. Palin is quite acceptable as she is second in charge, and in many ways more experenced than Obama. America will chose the Cromwellian protector over youth and uncertainty, America is scared to put an inexperenced man in charge in these perilous times.
September 8, 2008

2:07 p.m.

Suggest removal

mcsame_failin writes:

leatherneck: Do you mean 'croc'odile, or 'croc'k of ****?
It might mean the difference in this election considering the other things people are deciding their vote on.
September 8, 2008

2:10 p.m.

Suggest removal

rickg19611 writes:

Big_D....

What part of the article confused you?

The part where Obama kooks claim that cell phone users are NOT included in polls, and yet the Gallup poll states.... "Interviews are conducted with respondents on land-line telephones (for respondents with a land-line telephone) and cellular phones (for respondents who are cell-phone only).""

Oops.... Obama supporters have been proven to be either liars or ignorant.

Or perhaps it was that McCain leads Obama among likely voters by double digits..... as stated by the RMN article for this thread. Maybe you got confused when you saw the great news.... "Among likely voters, McCain leads Obama 54%-44%, the poll shows."

What confused you? The fact that Obama is sinking faster than a rock? Or the realization that you've been wrong all along?
September 8, 2008

2:14 p.m.

Suggest removal

Biff writes:

I'm lazy....I'm mad....and I'm voting for Obama.....
September 8, 2008

2:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

LOUIE writes:

Whoa, Charles_B, 12:14 PM, just disappeared from this site totally. Even though he attacked me, I didn't see anything worth censorship. Wow, that's terrible; makes you wonder who's next. I think I'll leave this alone for awhile. Folks chew me up, bang me up, throw me to the dogs, and I'll stand up for your right to do just that. I never have liked censorship unless it was open threats, or unbridled profanity without attached thoughts. To be truthful even profanity can be quite colorful at times. RMN, please let freedom reign, even idiots like me might have something to offer no matter how odd. Well it's off to Detroit and other cities; Gannett Corporation is much more tolerant of free speech. Come back here some other day I guess. I know I offend many people with my opinion also, thanks for tolerating me. See ya another day!
September 8, 2008

2:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

mcsame_failin writes:

"LEE'S SUMMIT, Mo. - John McCain and Sarah Palin criticized Democrat Barack Obama over the amount of money he has requested for his home state of Illinois, even though Alaska under Palin's leadership has asked Washington for 10 times more money per citizen for pet projects." AP, Sept. 8th, 2008
September 8, 2008

2:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

LOUIE writes:

Christ now he's back! What gives? Glad to see your still here Charles_B, but I still have nothing for you and I'm sure it's mutual pal!
September 8, 2008

2:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

Ahab337 writes:

*Yawn*
I guess this means McCain wins. Oh, wait. No it doesn't.

It's gonna bounce back and fourth plenty of times up until November. This is nothing new.

I'm signing up to volunteer for Obama. I encourage his supporters to do the same.

Obama '08
September 8, 2008

2:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

mcsame_failin writes:

Oh, this is good stuff:

"President Bush, who came to Washington as a former Texas governor without national legislative experience, called the Alaska governor '"an inspired pick"' by McCain.

'"She's had executive experience, and that's what it takes to be a capable person in here in Washington, D.C., in the executive branch,"' he said in a Fox News interview to be shown Tuesday."

I thought Cheney had made it clear that his office is not part of the executive branch, and Bush supported him on this.

Getting such praise from the ruling party president further convinces me that these two are not agents of change.
September 8, 2008

2:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

Well, it's a long way until November. And it's being said that because of changing demographics, states that used to be solidly Red are now up for grabs.

For example, Texas - where Blacks and Hispanics now make up the majority of the populace.
September 8, 2008

2:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

mcsame_failin writes:

rick_e_bear: if I had more time, I could spend days shoveling out the contrary statements of McCain and Palin here on the RMN blogs, and years listing those of the current administration that they will continue. The dung heap keeps growing exponentially, you would think people have gotta start smelling the stench of it soon?! (metaphorically speaking of course)
September 8, 2008

2:47 p.m.

Suggest removal

rickg19611 writes:

The recognition that Obama is losing by double digit margins (aka landslide) is causing the nuts supporting him to get hysterical.

So much that they get confused by the facts.....

FACT: Gallup polls landline AND cellphone users (there goes that mythical excuse used Obamanuts).

FACT: Likely voters support McCain by double digit margins.

FACT: Obama's support continues it's nonstop decline.

FACT: Time is running out. Obama needs to salvage his sinking ship, and with each week that passes, voters reject him more and more according to the polls.

Obama's sinking ship salvage operation is like a crewman on the Titanic thinking they could use a 1 gallon bucket to bail out the water faster than it came in. Nice theory.... but reality proved that it was hopeless.

Welcome to the SS Obama-tanic. The ship is sinking at an ever increasing rate of decline.

"Among likely voters, McCain leads Obama 54%-44%, the poll shows."
September 8, 2008

2:57 p.m.

Suggest removal

mcsame_failin writes:

um rickg19611,

Here are the actual official Gallup polls: http://www.gallup.com/poll/election20...

There is no landslide decline of support for Obama. The polls have been going back and forth with Obama in the lead the majority of the time over the last 4 months. Right now it is McCain's turn to be in the lead (though I think it is actually Palin's turn), although it is not double digits as the RMN reports, it is only a five point lead. Just four days ago Obama was eight points in the lead.

Sorry to burst your bubble.
September 8, 2008

3:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

leatherneck writes:

I'm voting Democrat because I believe the government will do a better job of spending the money I earn than I would.

I'm voting Democrat because freedom of speech is fine as long as nobody is offended by it.

I'm voting Democrat because when we pull out of Iraq I trust that the bad guys will stop what they're doing because they now think we're good people.

I'm voting Democrat because I believe that people who can't tell us if it will rain on Friday CAN tell us that the polar ice caps will melt away in ten years if I don't start driving a Prius.

I'm voting Democrat because I'm not concerned about the slaughter of millions of babies, so long as we keep all death row inmates alive.

I'm voting Democrat because I believe that business should not be
allowed to make profits for themselves. They need to break even, and give the rest away to the government for redistribution as the GOVERNMENT sees fit.

I'm voting Democrat because I believe liberal judges need to rewrite the Constitution every few days, to suit some fringe kooks who would NEVER get their agendas past the voters.

I'm voting Democrat because I believe that open borders and government giveaways to foreigners is a great way to grow a nation.

I'm voting Democrat because I'm way too irresponsible to own a gun, and I know that my local police are all I need to protect me from murderers and thieves.

I'm voting Democrat because I love the fact that I can now marry
whatever I want. I've decided to marry my horse.

I'm voting Democrat because I believe oil companies' profits of 4% on a gallon of gas are obscene, but the government taxing the same gallon of gas at 15% isn't.
September 8, 2008

3:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

mcsame_failin writes:

leatherneck: thank you for your supportive comments :)
September 8, 2008

3:14 p.m.

Suggest removal

jefferson3 writes:

Sheesh! People under 27 rarely own land lines... these polls are taken from the "old folks" who normally get scared easily by the repugs and who own a rotary dial. When the actual VOTE comes, the youth will be allowed to speak.
September 8, 2008

3:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

rickg19611 writes:

jefferson3 needs to learn how to read.....

From the Gallup poll.... they INCLUDE cell phone users.

"Interviews are conducted with respondents on land-line telephones (for respondents with a land-line telephone) and cellular phones (for respondents who are cell-phone only)."""

So WITH the kiddies and their cell phones included.... McCain LEADS by 10% points (landslide margin!) among LIKELY voters!
September 8, 2008

3:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

Mayor_Quimby writes:

"Sheesh! People under 27 rarely own land lines... these polls are taken from the "old folks" who normally get scared easily by the repugs and who own a rotary dial. When the actual VOTE comes, the youth will be allowed to speak."

Quit listening to Pelosi. She is a mor0n. Polling is done from BOTH landlines and cell phones.
September 8, 2008

3:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

mcsame_failin writes:

rickg19611:

What "Gallup poll...." are you referring to? Please provide a link. Your FACTS lack backing.
September 8, 2008

3:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

leatherneck writes:

mCsame: just helping out my fellow lefties...
September 8, 2008

3:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

mcsame_failin writes:

leatherneck: touche
September 8, 2008

3:26 p.m.

Suggest removal

rickg19611 writes:

mcsame....

Geez.... you say its a Gallup poll, but don't know where to find it. Here's a hint..... GALLUP.COM

Or try on the article that you're posting about.... scroll to the top and read the RMN article that you're claiming doesn't exist (perhaps you don't realize you're posting in it)

Or try USA Today, which ran the poll with Gallup.... here is their response.... " In the new poll, taken Friday through Sunday, McCain leads Obama by 54%-44% among those seen as most likely to vote. "

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics...

ENJOY!
September 8, 2008

3:35 p.m.

Suggest removal

rjnova writes:

I have never seen such a passionate exchange on any RMN report before. I do not have the time to read them all but my sense is that McCain supporters have become energized. It is perhaps the media frenzy to elect Obama---actually it is more like Anoint Him Caesar---has had a dispiriting affect on people. Now that people are seeing the Emperor Really Does Not Have Any Clothes, they are taking a realistic look at Obama.

There are some really insightful thoughts above. The most staggering thing is people see the Democrats have made another colossal blunder picking their candidate. The Leftist Democrats (aka Moveon.org) so underestimate the intelligence of regular folks they are subject to such blatant assignations.

Obama has been so apparently lacking of any substance, and yet has received such unbelievable attention and support from the media; it appears regular folks are asking how you could expect me to be sold such a worthless bill of goods. It appears Obama will get the dependable Democrat voter but most other voters are going to ask why do you think I should trust this guy with this country’s well being.
September 8, 2008

3:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

rickg19611 writes:

What any honest Democrat is thinking today......

"Ok... so McCain leads among likely voters by 10% points. At least we Democrats can claim that Obama is losing by only 5% among those who won't be voting.

Oh wait. If they don't vote, then it doesn't matter what they think. Crap.

Maybe we can save our sinking candidate by saying that the polls are wrong. I recall reading some web posting from some drunk guy on Daily Kos about polls not including cell phone users. And there must be something like 5 billion cell phone voters in the US that support Obama!!!!!!!

Wait.... the polls do include cell phone users, and the results show Obama losing by 10% points to McCain! AAARGGGHH!!!

Maybe we can still save Obama from a landslide loss. We have plenty of time. Sure, voter support of Obama has dropped every single month since April, but we Democrats still have a ton of time to go. Years to build him up. Oh wait. The election is in 8 weeks. YYYYEEEEEAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!!!!

Maybe the conventions will save him! Oh wait... we did those and his support DROPPED from what it was before the convention! YEEEEAAHHHA!!!!

Oh wait.... we have the debates. Whew. Obama is sure to salvage this sinking campaign in the debates. Oh wait. We did a debate, and Obama tanked! Even Democrats admitted that he blew it! He won't have a script on a teleprompter for him to read! OH NO!!!! YYEEEAAHHHHHHH!!!!

Oh gawd..... we nominated a dud and are now stuck with this broken down nominee.... geez.... can't wait for 2012. Maybe we can reverse our trend in disastrous presidential nominations.... for once."
September 8, 2008

4:10 p.m.

Suggest removal

KingSoopers writes:

*fist bumps everyone that posted Obama is in trouble a week ago*
September 8, 2008

4:15 p.m.

Suggest removal

IRUNMAN writes:

It is really sad that this day in age, as adults, the election turns into a game.

People namecalling. ( come on people, we are adults )

People blindly voting for their party just because of the label.

People not thoroughly investigating and researching who is the best ticket.

This board just exacerbates the problem.
September 8, 2008

4:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

mcsame_failin writes:

rickg19611: as the link I posted to the Gallup site shows, the Gallup poll's official ranking only shows a five point lead for McCain. Just four days ago Obama had a seven point lead (I was mistaken when I said eight), but here is the link to back it up: http://www.gallup.com/poll/110032/Gal.... These are results that can be compared apples-to-apples. The 54-44% lead among likely voters in the RMN and USA Today is not mentioned by the Gallup poll.

According to Gallup:
"McCain's current 49% share of the vote is his best performance in Gallup tracking to date. His five-point lead is his best since early May, when he led Obama by six points (48% to 42%). Obama has led throughout much of the campaign, and has led nearly all of the time since he clinched the Democratic nomination in early June."

Your claim that Obama is now on a landslide decline has no backing in the Gallup poll you keep mentioning. All that these recent results show is that Palin's fiery (defamatory) rhetoric has energized McCain's ticket and given him the surge he has been looking for. It was Palin's speech that got a 45% rating vs. McCain's 15%.

I just hope that the American people will not be so trivial in their choice when it comes down to it. There was no substance in Palin's speech on which to base an informed decision. Since then she has been banned from the media (oh, wait, she agreed to talk to one reporter) and has yet to articulate where she stands on the real issues. This is just a popularity contest at this point.
September 8, 2008

4:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

DenverDan writes:

It is funny how none of the freaks on the right talk about Bush. If he is something the GOP pushed to side side, and now the old man is saying he wants change, does he know that if you vote with Bush 90% of the time. He is the change that we want out.
Stupid people who put party first, country second. will vote for same crap that they did not talk about at the GOP. That is four more years of failed BS from the republicans.
September 8, 2008

4:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

rickg19611 writes:

mcsame.....

You're making this easy....

RMN: "Among likely voters, McCain leads Obama 54%-44%, the poll shows."

USA Today: "In the new poll, taken Friday through Sunday, McCain leads Obama by 54%-44% among those seen as most likely to vote. " http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics...

some poster on a bbs calling him/herself 'mcsame': "I don't see it. I'm confused. Where is it? Why is everyone saying McCain leads among likely voters by 10% points? "

Try reading some more. Perhaps by the time you get it, you can start work on the 2012 election cycle.... when Hillary tries to run against President McCain and Vice President Palin.

Maybe you can get Hillary to put Obama on her ticket as VP.... oh wait..... no chance of that after Obama blew it in 2008.
September 8, 2008

4:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

DenverDan writes:

Big D

That is funny, Very true.
September 8, 2008

5:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

mcsame_failin writes:

rickg19611: you are not reading what I last posted. You keep referring to the Gallup poll as your source, but the 10 point lead you are talking about is not in the Gallup poll. The Gallup poll provides the trend for the last four months, which does not support your assertion that Obama is in some unrecoverable decline at this point.
Not to say it is bogus, but I cannot find where this 54-44% lead actually came from other than it is mentioned in the USA Today article (and subsequently quoted in the RMN) without the actual poll being provided. So the Gallup poll provides a more reliable source to judge this on.

I did not post anything on the BBC, but your guilt by name association/similarity is not surprising considering your previous posts. Do you also support the no-fly list, which works on the same principles, such that innocent people including US citizens cannot travel or even end up tortured in a foreign country because their name sounds like one that the Bush administration has deemed unsavory? Seems unconstitutional. Where does McCain stand on this issue?

OK, now I am getting a bit low in the fray, I am going to drop off at this point, as this is clearly becoming pointless. Cheers, and have a nice night all.
September 8, 2008

5:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

ifyem writes:

Check out this video of Palin speaking at her church..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QG1vPY...

Yeah, I bet God meant for us to be in Iraq and build a new pipeline...What a nut case!!!
September 8, 2008

5:05 p.m.

Suggest removal

davies writes:

jefferson3 writes: "When the actual VOTE comes, the youth will be allowed to speak."

Yes. Unfortunately, their favorite word is "whatever", which is reflected in their voting habits.

DenverDan writes: "It is funny how none of the freaks on the right talk about Bush."

Yes. It's funny how whenever the 'Keating 5' are brought up, the liberal folks don't mention the four Democrats.

Big_D writes: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me all the time, I’m a Republican."

Yes. How about this one: "Never even understood the issues in the first place, don't like to face facts, but want to feel good about myself all the time, I'm a liberal."
September 8, 2008

5:15 p.m.

Suggest removal

DakotaPlainsman writes:

Obama should have picked Hillary. Talk about bad judgement. But, truth be told, Hillary probably told him "No". She knows a bumb when she sees one. She married one.
September 8, 2008

5:20 p.m.

Suggest removal

DakotaPlainsman writes:

Obama is probably a decent man. But Palin is a better man. Obee's wishin' he had a running mate with some gumption. Speaking of O'Biden, is he hunkered down under his desk? He need not be afraid, since there is not hunting season on politicians, Sarah won't shoot him, gut him and hang his head on her wall.
September 8, 2008

5:26 p.m.

Suggest removal

DakotaPlainsman writes:

I believe I noticed bags under Obama's eyes during his most recent pandering episode. I do think he is losing sleep. When he does sleep he see's the Dreams of His Father slipping away. And his Audacity of Hope is nothing more than Hope. Hope is not a strategy, and Change is not a destination.
His greatest worry though is how his wife is going smack him up side the head if he blows her opportunity to live in the big house.
September 8, 2008

5:28 p.m.

ifyem writes:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
September 8, 2008

6 p.m.

Suggest removal

rickg19611 writes:

LOVE IT! LOVE IT! LOVE IT!!!

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epol...
September 8, 2008

6:05 p.m.

Suggest removal

JayBen writes:

Here's a partial list of books Sarah Pallin tried to have banned from the Wasilla public library. She fired the librarian who refused to comply. Source; official minutes of Wasilla Library Board;

> >>>A Wrinkle in Time by Madeleine L'Engle
> >>>Annie on My Mind by Nancy Garden
> >>>As I Lay Dying by William Faulkner
> >>>Blubber by Judy Blume
> >>>Brave New World by Aldous Huxley
> >>>Bridge to Terabithia by Katherine Paterson
> >>>Canterbury Tales by Chaucer

> >>>Catch-22 by Joseph Heller

> >>>Confessions by Jean-Jacques Rousseau

> >>>Death of a Salesman by Arthur Miller
> >>>Decameron by Boccaccio
> >>>East of Eden by John Steinbeck

All Harry Potter Novels...

... it's a long list, this is just an excerpt...
September 8, 2008

6:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

seeker writes:

It is incredulous to me, and frankly quite sad, that such a large number of Americans are willing to suspend rational thought and proof to the contrary and once again willingly choose to sign up for 4 more years of economic inequity, manipulation and fear.

Sarah Palin pedaled backwards to the same issues the Republicans have depended on to draw in and garner the votes of the religious right and middle income Americans even though their economic and policy issues hurt these very same voters. Never mind that they haven’t even delivered on the issues that they have baited them into believing they care about. The Republicans reach into their old bag of tricks and pull out the same old lines. Palin’s
“facts” like those of Giuliani and Huckabee were distorted and factually inaccurate. Check it out here.

www.factcheck.org

“The Democrats are going to raise your taxes!” They repeat this in ads and in speeches and it’s just not true. Research this and find out for yourselves. There are many references to this lie at www.factcheck.org Type Taxes into the search area. Read it or Google it.

“The Republicans are good for the economy!” Really? Not according to the data. I know that there is a resistance to
anything scientific or full or those pesky facts but the data does not lie. I googled it and even I was surprised at the results. Click on the links below and be enlightened.

Under Democratic administrations the economy does much better for everyone including the poor and even the rich. That’s right; the Republicans make more money when the Dems are in power. So does the Stock market, Wall Street and the top 1% of the very rich. More jobs are created under Democratic administrations, more wage and salary growth and more output growth. This data runs from anywhere between 20-75 years of past and current administrations. And that old line about blaming the past president for the current economic issues is also dispelled by this data. So check it out and learn the truth about the Democrats and the economy. Don’t just buy the party line. Chances are it’s not the truth.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/bus...

http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/21/marke...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/...

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:...

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:...

Republicans are not the great stewards of the economy as we have been led to believe. They just say it so much....over and over and over and over....that it just sticks in your head. The economy does much better under the Democrats.....for the rich and the poor, for Wall Street and the stock market.
September 8, 2008

6:54 p.m.

Suggest removal

windskull writes:

USANUMBER1...If McStain and the Rovebots steal the Whitehouse AGAINyou ignorant MF not only does the Middle East glow in the dark green for 10,000 years from radiation America and the whole damn world loses culturally and historically,(FYI the Bible is derived from the very region you lunkheads wanna destroy) NEWSFLASH any oil under that region becomes entombed forever NOW DO YOU GET WHAT "FUELS" THE R-CON AGENDA...GREED PERIOD!
September 8, 2008

6:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

DakotaPlainsman writes:

250,000 Germans can't be wrong. They are fully behind an Obama Presidency. So is the President of Iran.
'Nough said.
September 8, 2008

7:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

DakotaPlainsman writes:

Under Democratic administrations the economy does much better for everyone including the poor and even the rich...
And so do Terrorist plots. The attack on WTC was planned under a Democratic administration who didn't know (or didn't admit) they were here.
The Vietnam war matured under Democrats.
The Axis powers flurished under a Democrat administration...
Blah, blah, blah.
September 8, 2008

7:10 p.m.

Suggest removal

DakotaPlainsman writes:

The Democrats are angered because the Republicans rescued a bunch of flags from the trash. They'd really be mad if McCain rented the styrofoam Greek Pillars and used them as a backdrop.
Flags, yes, Greek Pillars, no.
I think Biden was seen at a shopping mall looking at Lip Stick....
September 8, 2008

7:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

DakotaPlainsman writes:

Charles_B... You Tube should tell you that Reagan WAS president.
And I'll tell you: He was victorious in the Cold War. He was accomplished patriot. He stood up to evil. The Germans appreciated what he (America) did for them.
He WAS NOT a whiny, pandering wanna be.
Obama is NO Ronald Reagan. Never will be.
September 8, 2008

7:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

Colorado8888 writes:

OBAMA & McCAIN: PAWNS OF THE GLOBAL ELITE

By Patrick Wood

Will it matter if Obama or McCain are elected in November? Hardly.

Both are rigidly backed by important members of the Trilateral Commission who hijacked the Executive Branch of the U.S. government starting in 1976 with the election of Jimmy Carter.

In Obama’s case, Zbigniew Brzezinski (co-founder of the Commission in 1973) is emerging as his principal advisor on foreign policy. Ex-Fed Chairman Paul Volker has made a once-in-a-lifetime, glowing endorsement of Obama. Madelyn Albright is seen sitting next to Obama in several conferences. Shoot, even Jimmy Carter himself endorses Obama. All are top members of the Commission.

John McCain is being supported by several Trilateral Commission giants including: Henry Kissinger, George Schultz, Lawrence Eagleburger and Alexander Haig. All of these are ex-Secretaries of State who issued a joint endorsement of McCain early-on in his campaign.

And, [unfortunately] unless Obama shoots both of his own feet before the general presidential election in November, he is most likely to be the next president of the United States.

You would think that Americans would want to know who the “special interests” are that are embodied by this Trilateral Commission, and what they intend to do or not do with America.

http://www.augustreview.com/news_comm...

http://www.stopthenorthamericanunion....
September 8, 2008

7:23 p.m.

Suggest removal

diggtbks writes:

Rev Wright in the news again on CNN tonight. He cheered the DNC for throwing the American flags in the trash.
September 8, 2008

7:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

JayBen writes:

Reform we can believe in;

this latest McPain/Finegold update; "Palin is headlining a GOP fundraiser later this month at the home of a California billionaire where the asking price for a snapshot with her and a seat at the headtable is $50,000."
September 8, 2008

7:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

diggtbks writes:

Is Uh-bama a racist? Passages from his 2004 book:

Dreams From My Father: 'I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites.'

Dreams From My Father : 'I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother's race.'

Dreams From My Father: 'There was something about him that made me wary, a little too sure of himself, maybe. And white.'

Dreams From My Father: 'It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names.'

Dreams From My Father: 'I never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn't speak to my own. It was into my father's image, the black man, son of Africa , that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself , the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, DuBois and Mandela.'

The Dem party doesn't want a women in power and is pushing a racist candidate..... Who is really the party of change?

Michelle Obama's racial charged thesis while at Princeton has the same undercurrents of hate for white people.

Why else would they both gladly attend Rev Wrights church of hate? Have their children baptized there?
September 8, 2008

7:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

DUPioneers writes:

I love how rick_e_bear called somebody a "tool." If that's not calling the kettle black, I don't know what is!
September 8, 2008

7:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

DakotaPlainsman writes:

Obama is damaged goods.
The Democratic Party is hoping that they can sell him at Big Lots.
September 8, 2008

7:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

diggtbks writes:

Latest polls show the American flag is the official symbol of the Republican party.

Maybe thats why the Dems threw them in the trash at the DNC?
September 8, 2008

8:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

seeker writes:

DakotaPlainsman

It was your boys….Reagan, Ollie, Bush Sr and the boys who armed the Mideast with weapons…
It was W and his boys…and girl…who blew off the warnings about the attacks by airplanes…..W was spending lots of time on vaca…..
Viet Nam was the result of the DMZ that was set up long before a Democrat was in office,
The Democrats were not in charge of the world and could not be blamed for the Axis evolution…..maybe you should look up Prescott Bush….W’s grandpa and see his connection to the Nazis.
Unless you have been in a coma for the last 7 years there is no way you can rationally
defend this administration with logic. No matter how many other people you blame.

Their actions have created chaos in the mideast that will be felt throughout the world for the next hundred years. Thanks for the memories…..this is why we need a smart guy in the Whitehouse. Not another guy who graduates in the bottom of his class.
September 8, 2008

8:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

KingSoopers writes:

Charles_B, it's okay. Most Americans dislike Obama, but you can still be a fan. In fact, that makes you unique and special. This is America, we make accomodations for people who are different, we like our special people.
September 8, 2008

8:32 p.m.

Suggest removal

diggtbks writes:

seeker you forgot to add:

"the sky is falling, the sky is falling!!"
September 8, 2008

8:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

DakotaPlainsman writes:

South Chicago... that's all you need to say about what Obama can accomplish.
Show of hands of who wants to move there....
I didn't think so. I guess the Community Organizer didn't get things organized very well. Maybe he should go back to try again.
This time he should fix problems and quit writing books about himself.
And, if Obama can right all the problems claimed to be caused by Republicans, you'd think South Chicago would be in a bit better shape.
September 8, 2008

9 p.m.

Suggest removal

ourtownusa1 writes:

Oprah doesn't want to interview Sarah Palin until after the elections! Just more media bias...blatant media bias...Could even be racism! You decide... www.ourtownreport.com
September 8, 2008

9:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

seeker writes:

diggtbks

It is falling....look up. 7 years of neglect and bad judgement. It's falling on you and you are too invested in the party line to even see it.
And those who see people of color as racists are usually racists themselves. Another ploy to distract us from the real issues. It's all the Republicans have. Devious distractions. Too bad that America keeps falling for the culture wars that lead us to our own economic doom and the evil of a war that didn't need to be waged. Brave Americans died for their Commander in Cheif.....
September 8, 2008

9:19 p.m.

Suggest removal

windskull writes:

Just keep chugging,smoking,snorting& shooting your purple cult-ade BUT you best visit the local library and bone up on how to obtain food,water and what plants are medicine vs deadly because McCain-Palin will have if not you for sure your kids living in caves to avoid radiation fallout...find a globe and place your fingertip on Iran then without moving your finger rotate the globe a full circle and see for yourselves the countries in the direct path of daily fallout not to mention the fact that the Rocky Mountains are basically an 8,000 foot tall catch all for every 24hr cycle the planet rotates
September 8, 2008

9:23 p.m.

Suggest removal

Cwillyrun1 writes:

Here mytwosense, and a few others....... this is a link on Obama saying he wouldn't want to "punish" his daughter with an unwanted pregnancy: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/edi...

As a matter of fact, he would make us taxpayers pay for abortions as a part of government policy. He also believes in partial birth abortions. An example was given where one ended up with a baby in the waste and a nurse found it and held it for 45 minutes before the baby died. Obama said he believes even if the baby is born alive in partial birth abortions, the baby shouldn't live.
September 8, 2008

9:33 p.m.

Suggest removal

Cwillyrun1 writes:

Charles_B, when one associates himself so intimately with a belief that goes against what people want out of leaders, and keeps close company with racists, it's not avoiding the issues. Dismiss it if you will because of your simple thinking, but it speaks volumes about the integrity of a person. Anyone who will support that position is already engaging in failure, so don't try.
September 8, 2008

9:56 p.m.

Suggest removal

Cwillyrun1 writes:

seeker, if you will, we can go back to the 70's when Carter was President and arms were being sold to Iraq and other countries you've listed. What's your point? Bringing up ancestry, what about the close associations the Kennedy family had with the mafia? Joseph Kennedy, family patron. Isn't he to blame for all the problems the mafia created, since he had to have something to do with it all due to his associations........ using your logic. And I think Kennedy was a great President. It was Bill Clinton that was in power during the first WTC attack in 1993. He did nothing, even those several times where he knew exactly where Osama binLaden was at. Speaking of Ollie North, during the Iran-Contra hearings, he was asked why he had secured his home so thoroughly, with cameras and alarms and other security measures. He was specifically asked who would amke him afraid enought to fear for his life like that, and his response was "Osama binLaden". The Democrats that were a part of the Congressional hearing laughed at him.... the fools didn't know of their own ignorance, but I'm sure they do now. Vietnam may have been a result of the DMZ line, as you say, but it was Lyndon Johnson who escalated the war beyond all dreams. Kennedy sent "advisors" to Vietnam and was planning on pulling them out before his assasination. Johnson ramped it up. Think it's a coincidence he was from Texas, and most of the military contractors at the time were in Texas? I don't.

Your lack of historical perspective is illuminated by that last paragraph. The mideast has been in chaos for thousands of years already. It's been a violent part of the world for way too long. Blaming the problems there on Bush isn't working at all.
September 8, 2008

9:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

Cwillyrun1 writes:

How's that rickybear, does McCain attend the dead Falwell's sermons? Does he Pat Robertson's? I didn't think so. Go back to the drawing board!
September 8, 2008

10:10 p.m.

Suggest removal

dakar writes:

Don't you love all the liberals saying they'll move to Canada if they don't get their way. wah wah wah. The Dems don't want to compromise and they don't want to work with the other party. If any Dem tries to do that (Lieberman) they get booted out of the party. If you're the least bit independent, McCain is the only choice you have.
September 8, 2008

10:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

mcsame_failin writes:

Looks like McCain has already ceded the presidency to Palin, once he's done parading her around for money:

"She was thoroughly vetted and I'm proud of the experience and the talent she brings to our ticket, and she will bring to the presidency and vice presidency of the United States of America," McCain said.

from: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080909/a...

Boy it just doesn't get any better than this. The Democrats don't need to use the Republican's words against them, because they do it for themselves, AND they picked a fight with the media, so until Rove pulls the magic lever to shut down the free press (maybe he can't this time), the journalists are going to hold them to their words.
September 8, 2008

10:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

pets4pawlin writes:

I'd rather drink the GOP Kool-Aid than eat the Liberal Rat Poison...at least the Kool-Aid is sweeter....woof!
September 8, 2008

10:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

raisedincolorado writes:

guys, there is something clearly wrong when rock star obama, after spending the cash they did here and travelling the world and talking the smack he talks and they are down, adjust is needed cause he is going down.....
September 8, 2008

10:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

Cwillyrun1 writes:

You're weak, McSame. Real weak. About as weak as the Raiders against the Broncos.
September 8, 2008

10:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

mcsame_failin writes:

Cwillyrun1: du-huh, good one, you did a good one, he-haw.

Try reading.
September 8, 2008

10:41 p.m.

Suggest removal

jaybyrd writes:

Obama clearly understands the significance of the Bridge to Nowhere...he's walking it. Soon to come...the Obama campaign will fall drastically short of its post-convention fund-raising goals. This from the guy who tells you that running a presidential campaign is experience enough to qualify for the White House. (?) He'll be sorry he went there when the news breaks soon re: his mismanaged campaign. Stay tuned.
September 8, 2008

10:57 p.m.

Suggest removal

mcsame_failin writes:

Another sign that the ship is sinking under Republican leadership: http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy...

If you want a future for your-self and your family, don't waste your vote on more of the McSame. Read the news, get informed, check the positions the candidates have on the issues, and their past records. Don't listen to the endless diatribe and lies any more, but use your own mind.
September 8, 2008

11:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

GraceUnderPressure writes:

"YO MOMMA OBAMA"
McCain and Palin 2008

(Free T-Shirts and Bumper Stickers)

anyone, anyone??!!???!
September 9, 2008

9 a.m.

Suggest removal

temurlan writes:

Grace, Free???

Darn, I already bought mine online.
September 9, 2008

9:39 a.m.

Suggest removal

rg writes:

cd’s unbelievable allegation Palin’s sperm donor baby Trig was not her husband: Well, time will tell, however I allege that Palin's religious snake oil is similar to Hitler's brand in that she seeks for Alaska to secede from the Union and turn the Alaska nation into a refuge for the Aryan type. I will email you a few pages of my proof and will appreciate hearing your rebuttal or affirmation. Richard Grimes, a deicide and a freethinker, both on Hitler’s hit list so conceivably on Palin's, though I am registered Independent: http://www.geocities.com/r22037/think...

Deicide Corner: “Men of simple understanding, little inquisitive and little instructed, make good Christians.” -- Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592)
September 9, 2008

10:10 a.m.

Suggest removal

Cwillyrun1 writes:

rickybear......... you have a simple mind for sure. Let's see the difference here as I help to educate you. Obama attends a church with pastors that espouse racism for, what is it, 20+ years? After they are denounced for their racism, Obama shrugs it off, and only when the outrage of it is too much to avoid for his candidacy does he criticize Wright. Then he claims he's distancing himself from his "close friend".

Your example....... as the article on ABS news said, McCain is making peace with Falwell and speaking at a graduation ceremony. Nowhere does it say McCain and Falwell are "close friends", and nowhere does it say McCain agress with Falwell and his teachings, and nowhere does it say McCain will attend Falwell's sermons from now on, or that he ever did attend Falwell's sermons.

Thanks for actually making it easier for me to refute your comments. I didn't even have to look it up because you saved me the time. Ultimately, you're a lost cause and even trying to spin something, you've failed badly. LOL......
September 9, 2008

10:13 a.m.

Suggest removal

Cwillyrun1 writes:

mcsame........ you seem to be as articulate as your idol Obama without a prepared speech to read from. "Ummm, du-huh......... "
September 9, 2008

11:09 a.m.

Suggest removal

Cwillyrun1 writes:

rickybear, why can't you admit that there's differences between Obama and his associations with racists as opposed to McCain making peace with Falwell? They're not the same, and your failure to prove otherwise does you no good in your unintelligent debate. Question for you....... does McCain attend Falwell's church? Has McCain been associated with Falwell for a period of time? And the sad thing on your part is, Falwell isn't ripping black America like Wright did with "whitey", is he?

PS- It's not what most of us would call brainwashed, it's a matter of seeing the truth for what it is. I'm not sure how you relate this to "talking points" of the McCain campaign. But if it's all you got, it's all you got.
September 9, 2008

11:09 a.m.

Suggest removal

ChrisN67 writes:

I'm leaning toward John McCain. The man was tortured for his country and has worked with Dems (Joe Lieberman and Russ Feingold). He is the most independent Republican, so he IS a maverick.

No offense to Mr Obama, but what has he done? Writing two memoirs at his age seems more about self-promotion, why didn't he introduce legislation? Why did he simply vote "present" 123 times and not take any position in the Illinois state senate.

Look, I'm an independent, but I think that John McCain can bring the change we need to get things back on track, including the economy.
September 9, 2008

11:29 a.m.

jvb writes:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
September 9, 2008

1:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

ChrisN67, Obama voted a clear "yes" or "no" on thousands of bills during his eight years as an Illinois Senator. Voting "present" simply means you are not sold on a bill as it is currently framed.

He actually sponsored or co-sponsored hundreds of bills, which of course, not all were passed. Some of his most notable legislation that did pass during his tenure as an Illinois legislator include:

Equal Pay Act; Senior Citizens Prescription Drug Discount Act; Video Taped Interrogations Act (a bill that would make it illegal for cops to interrogate suspects without a videotape recording the interrogation); Hospital Report Card Act; and the Chicago Education Reform Act.

Probably all sounds like liberal stuff to you, which may not necessarily change your mind about voting for McCain. Although if you ever get arrested in Illinois, you may appreciate their policy if you happen to be interrogated by a less than ethical cop. But to dismiss Obama as just a "present" legislator in Illinois is incorrect and ignorant. He never would have been re-elected by Illinois voters for just sitting in office. Give them a little more credit.

For a breakdown - with easy to follow graphics and flowcharts! - of Obama's legislative activities in the Illinois senate, check out: http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/200...
September 9, 2008

1:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

Cwillyrun1 writes:

mytwosense, it's not about the Illinois legislature. It's about representing Illinois in the Senate of the United States. Voting "present" doesn't mean squat.
September 9, 2008

1:35 p.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

Cwilly, ChrisN67 specifically asked "Why did he simply vote "present" 123 times and not take any position in the Illinois state senate?"

I took the liberty of filling him in on the truth.
September 9, 2008

2:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

chris33 writes:

Obama's priorities are getting out of Iraq, universal healthcare, and American energy independence. These happen to be the three greatest priorities for America right now.

Getting out of Iraq will save us $200 billion dollars a year and bring our brave troops home to their families. American troops should not be sent in harm's way unless their is a COMPELLING NATIONAL INTEREST. Which was not the case with Iraq.

Every other Western democracy has universal healthcare except the United States, and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare, and they cover everyone. Why? Because a single payer system has inherent cost savings.

America's dependence on foreign oil is the most important security issue America faces. Clean energy technology is already available and only requires the political will to develop it.

Making these three issues his top priorities shows the wisdom and judgement that Obama has.
September 9, 2008

2:37 p.m.

Suggest removal

rickg19611 writes:

"chris33 writes:

Obama's priorities are getting out of Iraq, universal healthcare, and American energy independence."

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

Obama's priorities are..... get elected, get elected, get elected.

That is why he keeps changing his positions on every issue.
September 9, 2008

2:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

HighwayRobbery writes:

It is going to take not 1 but 2 kick butt Mavericks to get us out of the mess we are in. That is what we have in the McCain/Palin Ticket. No nonsense, not afraid to do the right thing, not afraid to cross any line to get the job done and done right, not afraid to go against the grain if that is what it takes! Our economy is in a sorry state of affairs I directly related to the high cost of fuel which affects everything from loss of jobs to a record loss of homes not to mention the rise in cost of all consumer goods. We have become so dependant on foreign oil that we have neglected to fully utilize such natural sources of energy such wind power & solar power. Along with modern technology such as plug in cars, hybrid cars, v2g technology ,and regenerative braking technology. We still seem to be floundering as a nation as to devising the best plan utilize all that is available to us and lift ourselves out of this mess we are in. We need to take our closest look at which candidates put our economy and energy crisis at the forefront of their agenda. The Manhattan Project of 2009 by Jeff Wilson pretty much says it all...
September 9, 2008

3:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

Cwillyrun1 writes:

mytwosense, I hear ya' on that.
September 9, 2008

3:33 p.m.

Suggest removal

Cowboy63 writes:

Have you seen the pictures on the front of the NY Times? McCain/Palin in front of thousands of cheering supporters and Obama trying to round up 40 people at a state fair somewhere.

Obama is not a bad guy, but the tide had turned and he has nothing new to offer. If I were Joe Biden, I would hire a food taster ASAP. It will still be a close election and the debates will also have an impact, but the bloom is off the Obama rose. McCain is by no means perfect, but I think Obama is paying the price for a brutal primary against the Clintons.

It is a beautiful thing to behold when grassroots America rises to proclaim what makes THIS nation the greatest in the history of the world: F-R-E-E-D-O-M! We will not allow some effete, ivy-league media snobs to tell us who we are or what to believe.

essential reading if the Angry Left ever wants to be relevant again:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f1984d88-7c...

The Left can either lose the contempt or get used to losing elections. Make a CHOICE.
September 9, 2008

3:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

Cwillyrun1 writes:

chris33...... Obama also wants to appease every country he feels America has offended. He couldn't admit the troop surge is working in Iraq until the evidence in front of him couldn't be denied any longer, but McCain has been saying it for a while now. Chalk one up to Obama being clueless on that subject.

Universal healthcare? Do you want the government making decisions on your health options instead of you and your doctor? Do you want the government controlling healthcare? They're a part of the reason healthcare costs are high.... mandated coverages by government. Ritter just signed 6 new mandates into law. Tell me, why should men have breast cancer exams mandated into coverage and why should women need prostate cancer exams mandated into coverage? Colorado ranks near the top in the 50 states (not 57, like Obama thinks, lol) for mandated coverages. Also, if it's anything like Massachusetts' healthcare plan, we'd be in serious trouble. After a few years, the state is already over $500 million in debt and asking the federal government for a bailout. I am curious about your claim of every country in the western hemisphere......... for instance, does Mexico have universal healthcare, and if so, why do their people come here for superior medical attention? It doesn't help to have illegal immigrants bankrupting our hospitals, increasing the cost of healthcare onto taxpayers. It's easy to claim change when some of those same people don't even know what the real problems are.

And your last one, American energy independence. I actually think it's the economy that's more important at this point, but we'll go with this. Does Obama plan to open areas for drilling, relieving the need to get oil from the middle east, Mexico, Canada and South America? If America doesn't open those areas, they're fair game for other countries. Mexico is already staking out spots in the Gulf of Mexico, right off of our coasts. Russia is staking out parts of the Arctic for exploration. They remain off-limits because of shortsightedness from our politicians who don't want to drill. Does he support nuclear energy? Clean coal technologies? Natural gas can't be transported by tankers, so what's drilled in America isn't sent overseas. But if natural gas is used more often (as we've been told...... natural gas is clean and cheap), it's not cheap as we're finding out now. The transmission lines/grids, as they currently are, can't handle supporting solar production in mass. They'd have to be upgraded significantly and that's a huge expense on our economy, not including the costs of building solar panels and power plants.

Just curious though......... what's your thoughts now?
September 9, 2008

3:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

Cwillyrun1 writes:

charles_b, your sensationalism isn't working out too hot. I think libs call it "fear mongering", right?
September 9, 2008

5:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

diggtbks writes:

Today....

"Barack Obama promised Tuesday to double funding for charter schools, pay teachers based on performance and replace those who aren't up to the job, embracing education proposals normally more popular with Republican candidates.

While teachers unions typically oppose the idea of performance-based merit pay, Obama is embracing the idea along with demands that teachers who don't meet standards are removed from the classroom. Obama's campaign said teacher performance could be judged by peer review, student test results, classroom evaluations or other processes."

Gotta flip....gotta flop... gotta flip....gotta flop.... repeat as necessary....
September 9, 2008

5:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

GetReal writes:

Charles can now see into the future.

How nice for him.

Are you like one of those high level Scientologists that can kill anyone just by thinking about it too?
September 9, 2008

5:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

seeker writes:

Cwillyrun1
Re:your post 9/8,my post was directed at DakotaPlainsman.
I posted a comment about research on the economy under different admins.I posted links to non-partisan websites. I also posted non-partisan links about remarks made at the RepubConv.I do the same when Demos make distorted remarks.
DakotaPlainsman went all whacko blaming Dems for Viet Nam,rise of the Axis,terrorist plots,the tragedy of 9/11.Had nothing to do with my post.Typical response for those who want to rage/ignore real issues.I don't get supporters/Repubs of this admin who are so angry.They've been in charge for a long time. Pretty much had their way & did whatever they wanted so why such angry & over the top rage?
Regarding your comments,I lived through the history you wrote about.I come from a military family.My father was a Marine.He & his Div.retired buddies were ashamed & angry in 1986 when Reagan,Ollie North(a Marine) & others were involved in arming Iran. The old Leathernecks were WWII Vets. My Dad & his buddies were in the 1st wave in the epic battles of Guadalcanal & Tarawa & the So.Pac.They also remembered the slaughter of 220 Marines in Beirut,Lebanon in 1983 by Hezbollah with the help of the Rep of Iran.Marines never forget…NEVER.So in retrospect,history is one thing,living it is quite another & living it personally,being touched by it can't compare to what other's say or read about it.
WTC 1993? Bad guys caught & prosecuted…no fake war..no real war.
Johnson & Viet Nam? Sort of like the promise we made to the Georgian’s when they established a new Democracy…it hasn’t worked out for Georgia has it? We’re too busy in Iraq.
I lost a brother in Viet Nam.I feel the sorrow and loss of that war still.
I have no idea where you came up with military contractors.The US has used them since 1777.So what’s your point?
And,yes,the Mideast has been in chaos for thousands of yrs,mostly over religion.See that’s why history is important. Knowing that should have made a difference in if or how we went in to
fight.When the Marines were killed in Beirut Reagan pulled out.His response was basic “These guys are freakin'crazy! We’re out of here!” Likewise,Bush Sr. in the Gulf War chose not to press on.He knew what was waiting down the road. He had advisors who actually checked this stuff out.
My historical perspective is just fine thank you.If you're happy with the way things have been going so far then great. We are where we are with the wars. We have to deal with the situation as it is.But I was commenting on the economy & things that the middle & lower classes are trying to deal with.You know,things that are of little consequence to Repubs,feeding yourkids,keeping your home,finding a job,having health ins. These are the Americans who fight the wars & sacrifice their lives for us all. They are the heroes in this narrative.This election is not really about war.It’s about survival for the people who keep this country the great nation that it is.
September 9, 2008

5:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

diggtbks writes:

Uh-bama on O'reilly tonight, topic - Rev Wright....

Plan to hear much back pedaling, flip flopping and other "save your skin" ploys.
September 9, 2008

7:26 p.m.

Suggest removal

seeker writes:

Cwillyrun1….on the subject of universal healthcare…..someone is already making decisions on my healthcare options and decisions…a $35,000 a year wonder decides whether I need a procedure or not. My income determines what level of care I receive. I pay for my own health insurance which costs $878.15 per month. I am lucky. I can afford a premium plan. But if you are not lucky in America, universal healthcare sounds pretty darn good. Anything is better than nothing at all. It’s easy to make broad sweeping statements about what’s right for others when you have what you need. That’s the problem with the party in power. “I have mine. You get yours.” If we are to believe the base of the party currently in power then we also have to accept the beliefs of that base. “I am my brother’s keeper; do unto other’s as you would have others do unto you; feed the hungry, clothe the naked, give drink to the thirsty, shelter the homeless, comfort the imprisoned, visit the sick, bury the dead; you will be judged as you judge others; now abide faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity;” Sort of gets all twisted up in the Republican manifesto as interpreted in some of these blogs. Too bad. It all sounds good in your heads I’m sure but it doesn’t help the people at the bottom of the economic ladder.

And if you do buy into the base belief in a Christian founding father’s idealistic society, then you also buy into the idea of a judgment day. On that day, I am pretty sure you will not be judged on your political affiliation but rather on how you treated the least of your brothers and sisters. I could be wrong about that but that’s how it seems to me. I guess we’ll see.

Energy independence is essential. So drill baby drill. But we need to develop other resources too. Obama does support a diverse plan for energy. I do want to know since we have invested not only money but precious American blood in Iraq why the Iraqis now choose to sell their oil to other countries. I guess Cheney didn’t see that one coming.
September 9, 2008

7:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

diggtbks writes:

C_B

Uh-bama HAD to go on FOX sooner or later. FOX owns Mon-Fri nightly news 5-9PM- huge audience.
I and probably others would of been impressed if he would of done it earlier in his campaign or multiple times- that would of shown guts. Going on FOX now is just a check in the box. Like sky diving one time!

Word has it Sarah Palin didn't immediately start taking questions because of the media's focus on her daughter. She has an interview this week- ABC I think. She's gonna rip those liberal media puppets.

Your every other post has that same question, why does it bother you so much? Are you a rapist, woman or girl?
September 9, 2008

10:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

GhostofReagan writes:

Heh, heh! The news makes me rub my hands with rapturous glee.

Yes indeed: vote for McCain and you shall soon have Armageddon! Thence, you can join me in Hell FOREVER!!!

Yours from the Hot Place,

RWR
666
September 9, 2008

10:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

GetReal writes:

Charles-

I support McCain and I don't want the state to force women and girls who've been raped to carry the child of their rapist.

I don't agree with Palin's extreme views on abortions in instances of rape or incest, but feel the chances of Roe V Wade being overturned are extremely unlikely. I believe it was bad Constitutional law to begin with and the issue should have been left up to the states, which is what would happen if overturned. So her stance on that doesn't bother me.

Your argument that McCain and Palin are afraid to talk issues is ludicrous.

Obama boasted a few months ago how he would debate McCain anyplace, anywhere, anytime. McCain requested 10 debates and Obama agreed to just three, with the more demanding Town hall style absolutely not allowed. What does that tell you?

Palin, on the other hand, was denied an invitation to a huge forum where America, and more importantly women, would have had a chance to hear her opinions.

But one of this countries strongest and most successful women, Oprah, has refused to allow Palin to appear on her show until after the elections, this coming after she had Obama and Michelle, Edwards and his wife, Hillary.... What is she afraid of? If Palin was so bad what better way to expose her than live on camera?

As far as McCain being an idiot for picking Palin, the unbelievable vitriolic scrambling by the media, and ObamaBots such as yourself, coupled with all the latest polls, prove otherwise.

Better luck in 2012.
September 10, 2008

10:36 a.m.

Suggest removal

rg writes:

Sarah Palin scares me. Her parents were Catholic; she turned into an Assembly of God whose membership believes in a real devil, speaks in tongues, opposes evolution, Bible is literal truth, extremist. She claims that our soldiers were "sent on a task from god" concerning Iraq which makes it a holy war. She claims that if gays pray long and hard god will heal them. She claims Jews are punished because they do not accept Jesus Christ, which is the Hitler mentality.

Sarah is now in Alaska, participating in the clamor for secession from the union touching bases with her latest impregnator whoever that may be. Her presence as Vice is chronicled by 23 lies uttered by her including her diatribe to Congress concerning the bridge to nowhere: “Thanks but no thanks,” take your bridge and shove it when in fact she lobbied for the bridge and its demise was due to publicity; however, she kept the $millions sent her making her a thief where she is known as the queen of pork where per capita, Alaska receives more ear mark money than any state.: $millions and $millions and $millions. Richard Grimes: Deicide, augmenting Sept 9 blog, http://www.geocities.com/r22037/think...
September 10, 2008

3:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

PriusGuy writes:

RG, your comments are right on target! Don't forget the ongoing ethics investigation against her! How can anyone even thinking of voting someone into the vice presidency when they can't even handle a governership without ethics violations?
September 10, 2008

6:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

GetReal writes:

Charles-

Let me know when you finally grow up, and actually attempt to defend the crap you spew.

Until then, STFU lap baby.
September 10, 2008

7:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

HopiMedicineMan writes:

If McCain doesn't pull another rabbit out his hat, his numbers have peaked. And when numbers peak they're subject to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Obama's base is pretty stable, names off grave markers.
September 11, 2008

5:05 a.m.

Suggest removal

slocatch writes:

Looks like a few Americans looked into Obama's history of vote. What change will saying "present" when asked for a yes or no bring? I do believe he did this aprox 43% of the time. He had the chance to debate, change, modify any bill that came his way. Did he not have good enough arguments to convince. Looks to me he pouts more than votes.
September 11, 2008

5:13 a.m.

Suggest removal

slocatch writes:

I bet he wishes he had got something done when he could have, his words alone just won't carry him any longer. Some people look for substance. Some look at one's history. Can't hold on to hot air very long can you?
September 11, 2008

11:47 a.m.

Suggest removal

jvb writes:

GetReal: You are a nasty fellow; maybe you are female.
September 20, 2008

12:08 a.m.

Suggest removal

Barb writes:

Too bad this "pretty face" Sarah Palin is such a fraud!

Palin has promoted an all -out WAR ON WOLVES in her own home state -- with the financial help of "The Safari Club" she promoted the barbaric aerial killing of Alaska's magnificent wolves to "boost" hunting dollars to the state!

It's not only unethical, it's barbaric. Alaskan voters TWICE voted it down, but using taxpayer dollars, Palin deceptively promoted it in such a way as to confuse voters.

Alaska's game dept. hires aerial gunners who chase these magnificent wolves to exhaustion from airplanes -- then shoot them several times to get a "good" shot to kill them.

It's sick, it's brutal, it's ruthless, it's unethical! Many hunting organizations themselves are against this kind of "hunting."

For those who are unfamiliar with the "Safari Club" it is a trophy hunting club for wealthy people who, for a lot of $$$$$, can pretend they are professional hunters.

Using "canned" hunting grounds (fenced in much like a zoo) -- they "hunt" giraffe, zebras, and exotic and endangered African animals -- it's like "pretend Safari" for a LOT of $$$ -- like $25,000 or more for a "hunt."

Sarah Palin is not what she would like you to think -- just a hockey mom? Better look twice!

Watch the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zr183l...
September 20, 2008

12:10 a.m.

Suggest removal

Barb writes:

I had to laugh OUT LOUD when I read this silly posting by some hysterical obvious FOX NEWS fan!

ourtownusa1 writes:

Oprah doesn't want to interview Sarah Palin until after the elections! Just more media bias...blatant media bias...Could even be racism! You decide... www.ourtownreport.com

Oh my God!! You mean Oprah is obligated to interview someone? Isn't FOX News obligated to report the news instead of lies, lies, and more lies? Grow up.
September 20, 2008

12:16 a.m.

Suggest removal

Barb writes:

HEADLINE NEWS- HEADLINE NEWS-- HEADLINE NEWS

DATE: 9-20-08

TO: ALL YOU SHEEP WHO THINK YOU ARE ACTUALLY WATCHING "FAIR AND UNBIASED" NEWS

FOX DOES NOT REPORT THE "NEWS"

IT IS THE PR AGENCY FOR THE REPUBLICAN PARTY!

And you constantly whine against media bias?!

Home › Politics › Elections

McCain tops Obama in latest Gallup Poll

Rocky Mountain News

Published September 8, 2008 at 8:18 a.m.Updated September 8, 2008 at 8:18 a.m.

More Elections

Share

Comments

Featured

Columns & Blogs

Published September 8, 2008 at 8:18 a.m.
Updated September 8, 2008 at 8:18 a.m.