The Difference On Iraq
Posted March 3rd, 2008 by Da King
“I have some news, Al Qaeda is in Iraq. Al Qaeda — It’s called Al Qaeda in Iraq…I don’t understand how Senator Obama would say he would go back to Iraq if Al Qaeda were there when Al Qaeda is there and everybody knows it,” — Sen. John McCain on the campaign trail.
“I’ve got some news for John McCain — he took us into a war, along with George Bush, that should have never been authorized, and should have never been waged.” — Sen. Barack Obama on the campaign trail.
This exchange highlights the difference between Republicans and Democrats regarding the Iraq war. Republicans believe we should stay there until we are successful, until Iraq is secured from the terrorists and insurgents and can stand on it's own. Democrats believe we should never have gone in, and we should get out ASAP. Obama has pledged to withdraw all troops in 2009 if he is elected president. McCain's statement that we might stay in Iraq for 100 years has been hyped to the rafters by Obama, even though McCain wasn't talking about fighting another 100 Years War, he was talking about a residual non-combatant force staying in Iraq, such as we have in Japan, Germany, Korea, Bosnia, etc. McCain's position is to finish the job in Iraq.
Obama's stated foreign strategy is not pacifism, however. He wants to withdraw from Iraq and send more troops to Afghanistan. He has also said he would strike Pakistan if he had "actionable intelligence" (and apparently, Bush has already struck Pakistan).
I think almost all americans wish the Iraq war was over. That is a given. I don't know of many who enjoy war, and I'd wonder about the sanity of anyone who did enjoy it. We hate the cost in human life the most. We hate the monetary costs as well. Obama continually talks about what he could do with the $12 billion we are spending in Iraq each month. He says it could go toward health care, schools, infrastructure (Hey, it just occurred to me. Nobody talks about paying down the debt anymore. Strange. That seems important…but I digress).
I also want the Iraq war to be over, but I don't want Iraq to descend into chaos by a premature american withdrawal either. After all that has been sacrificed to remove Saddam Hussein, push back Al Qaeda, fight the insurgency, secure the country, reconstruct the country, and get to where political reconciliation finally seems to be creeping forward, I would hope our next president would be responsible enough not to risk throwing all that away just to score some political points.
This brings me back to the quotes I repeated at the beginning of this post. Obama's point that we should never have gone into Iraq is MOOT, not to mention that it avoids McCain's point about Al Qaeda. The fact is, we ARE in Iraq. The fact is, Al Qaeda IS in Iraq. The decision the next president might have to make is — where do we go from here ? Obama has gotten a lot of mileage out of saying he was against the Iraq war back in 2002, even though he never had to vote on it, since he wasn't in the Senate. He's used that non-voting opposition to beat Hillary and Edwards in the primaries (who both were in the Senate and voted for the war, as did the majority of Democrats), and it appears he's going to use the same tactic against McCain. Notice how Obama has already started saying "McCain took us to war, along with Bush", as if it was all really McCain's idea. That's a politician for you. For a candidate who says this election is about the future, Obama seems to be the one talking about the past an awful lot. Read those quotes again. McCain is the one talking about the present. McCain is the one talking about where we go from here. That's what presidents have to do. The rest is politics. Obama is good at politics, good at speeches, and real good at getting a total free pass from an adoring media when he makes a mistake, as he did here.
—-
When I watched Hillary's commercial with the little girl sleeping, where the phone rings at 3am and something has happened in the world, (a very valid question to ponder when electing a president, btw, not "fearmongering" as Obama wrongly claimed), the president I wanted picking up that phone wasn't Barack Obama. Hillary had that much right. Unfortunately for Hillary, she wasn't the name that popped into my mind either. It was John McCain, the one with military experience, the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, the one who was first elected to the Senate in 1982. Experience DOES count. The Dems thought military experience was so important in 2004 that they dressed John Kerry up in a uniform and had a bunch of his fellow Vietnam soldiers lined up behind him onstage at the Democratic National Convention. It was "John Kerry, reporting for duty" back then. As ridiculous and ironic a spectacle as that was, the message was clear. No chickenhawks for president (even though Bush WAS in the service, oddly enough). Well, now it's 2008, Dems. Obama wasn't in the military. We have one candidate with military experience versus one chickenhawk who wants to become a wartime president and who wants to attack Afghanistan and Pakistan. What say you now, Dems ? Were you lying in 2004, or are you lying in 2008 ?
March 3rd, 2008 at 9:18 am
What was supposed to be an election dominated by anti-war rhetoric, the liberals find themselves in a predicament. They professed defeatism and common-sense prevailed. Now it's not about the war…………………it's about how the Bush administration got us into this war. Heaven forbid they speak about what they have to offer, or not. It is only sad that our proud soldiers continue to be politicized, rather than honored, by many.
Barak states how he was always against the war, but as state senator his influence was only slightly higher than that of a Burger King employee. What is the point? Susan Sarandon was also against it. She is then qualified to lead this country?
Hillary seems to exercise more caution in her approach, but the far-left extremists have taken her soul and her judgement mimics every poll. Should she become president and prove successful in Iraq…………….I'm sure she would refer to it as "her success" not "George Bush's war". The epitamy of a panderer.
McCain will not leave without a clear victory, however that is interpreted. If it takes 100 years, so be it. We must not broadcast any different intention to our enemy and to do so, demoralizes our soldiers. We can all dispute why we go into this, but I am a firm believer in finishing the job. These colors don't run……………..liberals do.
Is this a stump for McCain? Absolutely not, but he will have my undivided support in fall. Maybe this reality check will influence his VP selection, and several other unfavorable stances, to reflect conservative sentiment.
Tomorrow is another story. This conservative is "Hot for Hill" and, after a great deal of thought, I feel really good about this decision. After all, it's nothing 3 or 4 showers can't wash off afterwards. It is all about the strategy and that must be admired. Tomorrow is "let's be a liberal" day.
I was thoroughly disgusted by the cross-over participation in early open primaries and I am more than happy to return the favor. It wasn't about their admiration for McCain, it was more about influencing their candidate's competitor. We all know what is under Hillary's hood, but the invisible man continues to resemble a pandora's box. I'm not about surprises and I prefure to defuse him before we derail the wicked witch.
Deadlocked liberals = division = riots = Good for conservatives.
I believe this rogue element is bigger than anyone realizes in Ohio and Texas. Once I explained the logic, 7 family members joined in. This one is even under the radar of the pollsters and undetectable. I would love nothing better than to hear the liberal media Wednesday……………how the hell did this happen?
March 3rd, 2008 at 11:04 am
King,
The war in Iraq us apt to be a big issue in the coming election …. with it working against the Dims.
That is because, although Americans do want out of Iraq, they also want victory, except the American-hating left, of course.
As the surge continues to improve security and political stability in Iraq, the cut-and-run surrender crowd is going to be left high and dry. And so will the Dims, especially if their candidate is BO.
Even with his glib tongue, BO will not be nimble enough to crawl back in from the defeatist sentiments that he's been expressing all through the primary season. Then, he will take have the appearance of one who is hoping for an American defeat for the sake of his own narrow political career.
March 3rd, 2008 at 11:18 am
Alexander, you made some good points in the past about 3rd parties, but it just amazes me how all you good R's are coming out now to support a candidate you can't stand, simply because of that R behind his name. I wonder if you thought this highly of John Sidney McCain in 2000 when he let Karl Rove nearly drive him to suicide. I do like how you admit Sidney won't leave without a "clear victory", whatever that may be. What exactly is that?
Sidney is your candidate because the only thing your party has left is winning at any cost, whatever that may be, in Iraq. You don't have values anymore; you don't have fiscal responsibility anymore; you don't have small government anymore; you don't have education, health care, or the economy anymore. All you Rs are selling is well we can win in Iraq. But hey, Sidney's against abortion (at least now he is) and he's for blowing up Iraq for the next 100 years( I must admit he's always been consistent there)…..he must be the best choice. Please.
Much like the D's did with John Kerry in 2004, you are now giving all out support to a man you despise. And you want to say you are better than the D's? I'm choking on my Heinz ketchup over here……….
At least be honest and say you are voting for him because he's the lesser of 2 (or 3) evils….or that you are voting for him because he's R…..but don't try to convince yourself he's a candidate you endorse. Because it's not true. You're voting for him because he's a republican, at least by name, and for no other reason. Except that you hate the Clintons. Doesn't matter, Alexander, because regardless of who you vote for you'll be voting for a D as President come November, one way or the other.
March 3rd, 2008 at 11:22 am
Hey, Ghost, is the surge in Iraq still working as well as it seemed to be a couple of months ago? I never hear much about Iraq anymore because CNN doesn't talk about anything but the Primary Campaign game 24/7. I keep wondering if the surge isn't working so well that the MSM has been forced to concentrate on the election process so they can say something positive about the Democrats and their candidates. It seems that they must be afraid to tell too much truth about Iraq as that would make Obama look like the organ grinder's monkey or something like that. Come to think of it there is a strong resemblance there.
March 3rd, 2008 at 11:50 am
da truth: because the only thing your party has left is winning at any cost, whatever that may be, in Iraq
Alexander: Prior to the surge, the Dooms entire campaign platform was built around the "failed" Iraq policy. Then came the character asassination of General Petraeus, when he mentioned positive progress, and Harry Reid "boosting" troop morale. Now the dooms are stuck on campaigning against George Bush when he is not even running for office. Preventing the expansion of socialism, preserving the integrity of the supreme court, and defending our nation seem like more than just an "only".
da truth: amazes me how all you good R's are coming out now to support a candidate you can't stand, simply because of that R behind his name.
Alexander: Nothing to do with the ivory tusks. I would gladly support a conservative Democrat over a liberal strickened Republican. One must base their decision on the candidate which most closely mimics their ideologies. I can honestly say………..gender, race, or party will never dictate my decision……..conservatism does. In addition, I will never cast a vote based on the premise of an undefined hope or the soothing tone of a voice. Besides, look at the choices I am faced with: "out of bounds left" , "hard left", and moderate. There are no major decisions involved. But I will use the primaries to voice my dissent with the primary process, as well as give John McCain a wake-up call from the conservative base.
da truth: You're voting for him because he's a republican, at least by name, and for no other reason. Except that you hate the Clintons.
the truth: Bottom line………….he most closely resembles conservative ideologies. He is fiscally solid, his immigration policies suck, and his national defense mindset is where I need it to be. I am confident his supreme court picks will please and I believe he will shift to the right when attacked by liberals on capital hill. You are correct in stating that he is the lesser of 3 evils. I don't hate the Clintons', I simply despise liberalism. By continuiing the slugfest in the liberal arena, there exists a strategy of brilliance. Therefore, I cast a vote in the name of strategy.
Bottom line: Primaries need to be closed, or move Texas, Wyoming, and Montana to the front of the pack. They are consistently watered down by allowing cross-overs.
March 3rd, 2008 at 12:27 pm
He is fiscally solid? Yet he admits he knows nothing about the economy. At least you were honest in saying why you are really voting for Sidney: it's because you despise liberalism. Which is what this whole election would be about, only your party has picked as its candidate the most liberal one of all the choices. King has said on more than one occasion that the country is leaning left, and he's right. But the country is not leaning left because of the media, or because of global warming, or because of abortion, or anything like that. The country is leaning left because as weak as the D party is right now, it has not lied to the people about what it really stands for as much as the R party has. What you R's have to realize is that Mr. Reagan is no longer here and the powers that be that run your party now have little to nothing in common with him. If my party is on its knees, yours is face flat. Did you learn nothing from 1994 and 2006?
March 3rd, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Yes indeed, Roy, the surge is still working well …so well in fact that its benefits have now extended beyond the area of pure security & military matters and into the internal Iraqi political process itself.
And, of course, this is exactly why you don't hear much about Iraq on CNN or CBS, NBC, or ABC or read about it in the dying NY Times.
Behind the scenes, this American/Iraqi success is driving the liberals crazier than they normally are. The surge is also a direct threat to the presidential prospects of whoever the Dims nominate, but especially if it's BO.
++++
By the way Roy, new scientific findings are exposing Algore's global warming hoax each day. From what I understand, it is being reported by climate scientists that, for the past nine years, the temperature of the planet has decreased.
So stand back. It looks like another liberal myth is about to bite the dust.
March 3rd, 2008 at 1:21 pm
Da truth, you do realize this could go back and forth all day, but I'll let the rest of the crew play sweeper.
da truth: The country is leaning left because as weak as the D party is right now, it has not lied to the people about what it really stands for as much as the R party has.
Really now. If there is nothing to hide, why not say abortion instead of "right to privacy", why not say illegal alien instead of "undocumented worker", and why not say socialized healthcare instead of "universal or free healthcare"? By playing word games, the liberals and their media cohorts are able to mislead their constituents. How else can one explain being hypnotized by calls for "change" and "hope", while not privy to the elaborate details or price tag. The politicians, as well as the majority of voters, should be enrolled in a refresher course that explains conservativism and liberalism. Only then, will they not make fools of themselves come election time. A dope is a dope, regardless of the R or D they defend. While Obama has a sizeable cult of followers, I haven't been impressed by their inability to state their candidate's positions. Let's support the woman, let's support the african-american, let's set a precedent, blah, blah, blah! Here's a new one: Let's base our support for a candidate on the issue. The country is leaning to the left because the majority of the unpolitically-motivated individuals reside therein.
For the past eight years, the Republicans have poorly executed what they stand for. What they believe in hasn't changed.
We'll have to wait till election time. I can only hope this time that there are no sore feelings because people couldn't read a ballot or punch a stylus through. In addition, let's seat the Florida and Michigan delegates and make sure every voice is heard. Leave no "pregnant" chad uncounted. Gov. Charlie Crist has offered to assume expenses to redo the Florida primary as, as a democracy, we must allow this to occur. No disenfranchisement!
March 3rd, 2008 at 4:08 pm
Yes, Vince, another liberal myth is about to bite the dust….just as the conservative myth of fiscal responsibility had for the last 14 years.
A., you are right, we could go on and on, but I didn't bring up supporting a D candidate. You offered your full support and backing for Sidney. So I am unsure as to what it is you think I am hiding. It still amazes me that you guys say the MSM is brainwashing us but that conservative radio does not attempt to do the same to you. But that's a different point. You are right, a dope is a dope, but other than the Iraq war your guy is just as misleading and lost as the other 2. Mr. Obama is not the first black man to run for President and Mrs. Clinton isn't the first woman. Your friends at conservative radio have not forgotten this, and I am sure you haven't either.
"For the past eight years, the Republicans have poorly executed what they stand for. What they believe in hasn't changed." I take issue with that. Number one, we're talking about going back to 1994 here, and I'm sure you've read your neocon primer that shows you R's are supposed to support the big government you formally detested. Just because you haven't written it down in your formal rules doesn't mean it isn't so.
Finally, I agree with you wholeheartedly on getting everyone's vote counted. I don't blame 2000 and 2004 on chads and whatnot; President Bush won fairly under the rules. I hope Mr. Obama gets the same fairness if it comes to that.
March 3rd, 2008 at 5:30 pm
da truth, I am like King in that I will enter the voting booth with my nose clasped firmly by my left thumb and forefinger, but I will be able to vote for McCain by so doing and won't even have to think about how much I don't want to do so because of the other choices available. I will do that because I want a Republican there to veto some of the really fool things that a Congress controlled by Dems will turn out in great numbers. If they want to socialize this country, as they do, they will have to do it with 2/3 votes in both houses and I don't think they can get 'er done.
I will certainly vote for Juan McCain for that reason and that reason alone. What do you think of that?
March 3rd, 2008 at 5:35 pm
how about hillarys comment the other night in marietta i believe -
"we have two wars we are in - one we have to win and one we have to end."
she doesnt want to win both?
March 4th, 2008 at 8:06 am
Alexander,
I agree with you on the voting strategy. In fact, I entered the voting booth at 6:30am today and executed that strategy. I don't think Obama's vaporous rhetoric has done nearly enough to earn the nomination.
Speaking of Obama's supporters not knowing his positions, when I arrived at the voting place, there was a young girl voting, obviously for the first time. She looked very confused. When the poll worker asked if she wanted to vote Democrat or Republican, the girl just stared back blankly and gave no response. The poll worker asked again. The girl hesitated, then blurted out "Obama". I couldn't believe it. This young girl knew she wanted to vote for Obama, but she didn't even know if he was a Democrat or a Republican. I guess Barack has that "hope" and "change" mojo working pretty well. Who needs policy, eh ?
March 4th, 2008 at 8:21 am
da truth,
I think you are missing a few things in your condemnation of Republicans abdication of fiscal responsibility during the Bush admin (which you know I agree with you about).
1) We're at war, and it is imperative that we win. Wars cost money, lots of money. Losing those wars would be much more harmful to the USA in the long run.
2) Bush isn't running for president in 2008. McCain has a reputation for conservative fiscal policy. What about Obama makes you think he knows anything more about the economy than McCain does ? Obama's stump speeches indicate to me that he knows far less.
3) No matter how much money Republicans spend, liberal Democrats like Hillary and Obama will ALWAYS spend much, much more. It is estimated that Obama has already proposed $875 billion in new federal spending. If you contrast that with McCain, there is no doubt who is the most fiscally responsible. Or you could look at Citizens Against Government Waste's website and compare congressional Democrats to Republicans. You will also see there that Democrats are the really big spenders, and all at a time when the huge entitlement crisis is coming towards us. Deeply irresponsible. As a conservative/libertarian who believes in low taxes, limited government, national security, and liberty, I have to pick McCain over Obama. My principles demand it. There simply is no other choice.
March 4th, 2008 at 9:40 am
King: "We're at war, and it is imperative that we win. Wars cost money, lots of money. Losing those wars would be much more harmful to the USA in the long run."
This is correct, and understand further that there was also an indirect cost of the war.
It appears that one of the main reason why George Bush went haywire on domestic spending was to buy political support for the War in Iraq.
This was a strategic mistake on Bush's part, but that's what he did.
March 4th, 2008 at 10:05 am
King: Setting aside the singing of the commenting choir here…..I want to challenge the basic point from your post.
Obama spoke out against Iraq. That was a minority view at the time, very unpopular.
McCain was balls to the wall in favor.
This has nothing to do with arguing the past….what it has to do with is JUDGMENT.
Perhaps you would rather have a president who exercises horribly poor judgment. I don't.
It is about the past when the judgments of the past are so glaringly opposite.
You say…
"Notice how Obama has already started saying "McCain took us to war, along with Bush", as if it was all really McCain's idea."
…you are the one putting words in Obama's mouth. McCain DID, at the very least, take us to war with his vote, ditto Hillary. Obama was against it.
The Hillary 3 AM ad was ridiculous. Rovian nonsense for the nuts. Fear mongering like the neo-cons. Simple as that, everybody knows it.
Finally…..over and over I have to focus the lens for folks. If we are at war in Iraq…..who are we at war with? I don't care how often conservatives state we are at war…..I still haven't gotten an answer on who we are at war with.
Saddam is gone, no big, bad WMD….no al-Qaeda before the invasion. No Bin Laden/Saddam connection. Baathists long ago defeated. Who in the blazes are we at war with now?
If you state we are at war with al-Qaeda in Iraq then all you are doing is conceding Obama's point. Al-Qaeda wasn't there in 2003. So what's next? We're at war with any FUTURE enemies of Iraq….and so that's why more American soldiers have to die there and that's why all U.S. domestic programs must be cut….so we can fund and shed more blood against any FUTURE Iraqi enemies.
The American people have spoken. They want us out of Iraq.
Any talk of winning or victory is nothing other than fact-free, sophomoric denial. Vietnam stupidity revisited.
March 4th, 2008 at 10:35 am
Ghost: Did you have an apparition last night?
"It appears that one of the main reason why George Bush went haywire on domestic spending was to buy political support for the War in Iraq."
So let me get this straight….when Tom DeLay was twisting those arms for Plan D….that wasn't really because he and his Leader were in bed, incestuously, with Big Pharma and Big Insurance?
It was all really kind of a bribe program so Bush could continue to piss away a trillion into Iraqi sands and honor all those body bags coming back into the U.S., you know, like a good little boy playing Commander Guy dress up?
March 4th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Around the world oil money is being used to fund new mosques, madrasses and allowing Whabisim to radicalize Islam throughout the world. A product of this process is a more militant religion and believers willing to sacrifice their lives for the cause. Hopefully we are not foolish enough to think if we leave Iraq the battle will end. Anywhere there is a poverty and a weak ,indifferent or appeasing government structure it becomes a breeding ground for the Jihadists. Also I worry that the very strengths of democratic principals play into the hands of the Jhiadist and they use those very rights to further their goal
March 4th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
I am off topic but I have to ask if there is anything going on in Ohio other than heavy rain and hail in the south, sleet in between the rain and the heavy snow in the north? Well in addition to all that and floods in some areas. Quite a day for voters to exhibit their desire for change, it seems.
March 4th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
I watched CNN and you would think the world was coming to an end in Ohio. It was their usual mindless sensationalism. I drove diffeerent places today at different times and it was no big deal.
March 4th, 2008 at 9:12 pm
Roy and King, I think you guys are missing my point. Yes, I am voting for Obama, at least in the primary. Beyond that, I haven't made up my mind. Because other than Iraq, the candidates are not that much different. You guys say McCain is fiscally conservative, but his record doesn't show that; in fact he admits he knows little about economics. And yes, King, historically dems spend more, but if we look at recent history since 1994, a very strong argument can be made that the spending is much the same.
Finally, I would say that you two know that whenever I have posted here, I have never been shy about calling out my party on its shortcomings. And usually you guys (King, at least) are willing to notice the shortcomings of the Rs. But fiscal responsibility is not the only place the neocons have abandoned the R party on; it's only the most obvious. My point since I started to post on your blog king has been that 1) 3rd parties are needed to get Washington straightened out and 2) the R's have had a clear path and "political capital" to run things and they have screwed it up. I don't think we disagree on that.
I think the main difference here comes down to what you two consider priorities. I never wanted us in Iraq in the first place, and while the war certainly plays a part in the amount the Rs have spent, it is not the only thing. The war issue is the biggest issue dividing these candidates. Unfortunately, for a state like ours, the real focus should be on the economy. Once Barack and Hilary leave here they will go back to making it a secondary issue.
Anyway, I appreciate the honesty you both show in admitting where the Rs have failed and I appreciate your honesty regarding voting for Mrs. Clinton…..never pulled that one in a presidential, but I must admit to having done it once or twice in judicial races in the past
March 5th, 2008 at 6:15 am
da truth,
Where did you get the idea that McCain's fiscal record isn't conservative ? It most certainly is. He has long been a birddog in the Senate against pork barrel spending, often criticizing his own party. If your opinion comes from the fact that McCain voted against the Bush tax cuts, that was rather atypical of McCain. During his long Senate tenure, he has voted FOR tax cuts far more often than against them. The Wall Street Journal has a recent article about it at the following link:
http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB120295108223666913.html
Also, the Republican-led Congress held spending DOWN from 1994-2000 and exhibited fiscal discipline. The Republicans were a bigger reason for that Clinton era balanced budget than Clinton was, by far. They drug Bill to economic discipline, not the other way around. Hillary always conveniently forgets that when she's on the campaign trail. Only from 2001 forward (as in, Bush's "compassionate conservatism", post 9/11, recession, war, etc) did the Republicans lose that discipline, unfortunately. For that, they have nobody to blame but themselves.
March 5th, 2008 at 6:24 am
Roy and fred,
It looks like Ohio voters didn't get the media's message that the messiah's ascent to the throne was inevitable. Texans and Rhode Islanders are heretics too. I sure hope Michelle Obama is still proud of her country.
And if I hear one more media dope talk about how bad the weather is in Ohio and how it might have changed the election results, I'm going to scream. This is just winter in Ohio, no more, no less. The weather has always been like this during winter here. WE'RE USED TO IT ! A little sleet didn't stop anyone from voting, except maybe those who care so little that a hangnail would have stopped them.
March 5th, 2008 at 6:57 am
Ugh-oh! Comrade Hillary came lumbering back to life yesterday with victories in Ohio and Texas, two rather significant states.
Que pasa?
Did B. Husein Obama's lies on NAFTA (Canada) hurt him in Ohio, or was it his Resko connection?
Or, are even Dim voters wising up that BO is nothing but an empty suit?
Or maybe the Dim voters are still closet racists?
Or, maybe there are more people like our dear Rebecca around?
Or, maybe the Magic Negro merely run out of pixy dust?
In any event, the Clintons can focus their corrupt efforts on changing the rules of the game in mid-stream so as to essentially steal the delegates from Mich. & Fla. for the dumpy little Comrade in a pants suit.
The question is: Will the blacks revolt over this screwing, or will they take the usual bone the Dim establishment throws them and go back to work on the Dim Plantation of Dependency?
March 5th, 2008 at 7:44 am
Ahh yes, some more Kingspin on a candidate he can't stand, via the WSJ. McCain is not a Republican. Not only did he stand with the most liberal of senators on the tax cuts, he voted with them on things undermining the tax cuts such as voting against repealing the death tax, among others. You also seem to forget how in 1998 (as commerce chairman) he voted for the 282% "fee" on cigarettes. He's also voted for big governemnt bills that you failed to mention. I wouldn't call him liberal in the Obama sense, but he ain't no conservative. Maybe you need to look a little deeper when you do your internet research, because there is much you missed on this one.
But thanks for admitting that the combination of the R congress and Bill Clinton's leadership made everything hunky-dory when Slick left office. I guess that also supports your point that everything was pink lemonade and moonbeams until 9/11 and it was only then that the Rs abdicated everything they believe in. Oh wait, it was R leader R congress from then to 2006. If that is the thesis you put forth, then we are screwed come November because we will have D leader with D congress.
In any event, you will be voting for a D come November and you know it.
Finally, was it just me or did Hillary admit in her speech last night that Mr. Bush is a very good President? Because all the qualities she listed as being required of a leader sure sound like the one we have……..??
March 5th, 2008 at 10:46 am
da truth,
Me, spin ? No, I'm a no-spin zone (where have I heard that phrase before ? It sounds familiar).
Me, vote for a D in november ? I thought we already cleared that up. Not gonna happen, unless maybe JFK comes back from the dead and gets the nomination.
You made a couple points about McCain's non-conservatism, but that didn't change things. He isn't a perfect fiscal conservative, but he IS conservative on fiscal matters for the most part, and he's better than most of the rest of the Senate. After two decades in the Senate, sure, you can point to a few non-conservative fiscal moves here or there, but his overall record is conservative, speaking strictly from an economic standpoint. Calling McCain a fiscal liberal in the vein of Obama would be a far bigger misnomer. He's not that.
And thanks to you for admitting that the Republicans didn't abandon fiscal conservatism in 1994 as you said previously. They restored it in 1994.
March 5th, 2008 at 10:48 am
Vince,
Whatever caused the Dems to start questioning Obama, all I can say is, better late than never. It's about time they started analyzing what he's saying instead of just going 'ooh, ahh' about the way he says it.
Maybe it was this blog, lol.
March 5th, 2008 at 11:28 am
You guys kill me with this messiah stuff. When has there been a candidate that had a strong following who didn't have legions of people drinking his Kool-Aid? You don't get to be a frontrunner (or one of them) without such people. Why is he any different than any of the others? Ridiculous. And yes, you will be voting for a D in November. His name is Sidney. Just look for the one with R after his name……
And I didn't say that you didn't abandon your fiscal responsibility in 1994. You most certainly did. Just look back at your own blog….maybe reviewing the website YOU cited about the increase in spending over the years will clear up your forgetfulness.
Also, while I don't think Mrs. Clinton can win the general election, I do have some advice for her. All she has to do to win is spread some rumors that Sidney 1) abandoned veterans on POW-MIA and Agent orange issues; 2) had a black child out of wedlock; 3) that his wife's a druggie and that he's gay; and 4) that he's "mentally unstable" to be President. It worked for Bush, why can't it work again! So if Mrs. Clinton plays it the way the Rs do, she just might have a chance!
March 5th, 2008 at 11:45 am
As to the thumping BO got, King humorously say, "Maybe it was this blog, lol."
Maybe. After all, every little bit helps.
And that fellow Alex said he got seven members of his [I assume, conservative] family to vote for the Comrade purely as a tactical measure. There was a lot of that going on in Ohio and Texas.
+++
"… unless maybe JFK comes back from the dead and gets the nomination."
Rest assure, King, John F. Kennedy won't come back from the grave to get the Dim nomination. But, given that he's a Democrat, he just might come back to vote.
March 5th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Yes, what a thumping. He's still virtually deadlocked for his party's nomination, while the candidate you supported, Vince, has to go on television and profess his love for a man all of you R's despised just a few short months ago. And you're making fun of us? Hilarious.
Keep laughing, my friend, come November when you vote for that D that what's left of your party nominated. And remember how you felt about that very same man prior to his comeback. Choke that one down.
March 5th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
King,
I just got back from a trip to Loon City (a.k.a., The Daily Kos) where it is being claimed that Comrade Hillary's campaign doctored up a photo of BO to make him look darker (more Muslim is how they put it) than he apparently is. They even have contrasting photos over there to "prove" their case.
This charge dovetails nicely with the earlier one of the Clintons releaseing those photos of B. Hussein Obama in his traditional African garb.
Ya gotta love it when these kooks go after one another.
March 5th, 2008 at 7:06 pm
Hey Vince, you gonna keep ignoring everything I say in November when you vote for Sidney the Democrat? Just wondering. But thanks for confirming for me that your new found love of Sidney is just that.
March 6th, 2008 at 8:17 am
da truth,
"And I didn't say that you didn't abandon your fiscal responsibility in 1994. You most certainly did. Just look back at your own blog….maybe reviewing the website YOU cited about the increase in spending over the years will clear up your forgetfulness".
Do we have a failure to communicate here ? I said the Republicans abdicated fiscal responsibility after Bush became president, not since 1994.
And the "messiah" thing didn't come from me or other conservatives, it came from the mainstream media, after people started looking all rapturous at Obama rallies and started swooning and fainting. The term is also a reference to how Obama's fans love him so much, but don't even know what his policies are, which I've witnessed repeatedly.
March 6th, 2008 at 8:22 am
Vince,
"King, John F. Kennedy won't come back from the grave to get the Dim nomination. But, given that he's a Democrat, he just might come back to vote".
LOL.
And he'll probably vote in District 11 in Cleveland, along with Mickey Mouse and George Jetson.
March 6th, 2008 at 8:27 am
Vince,
There's a real brain cell shortage among the Daily Kos-mo-nauts, for sure.
I guess those darkened Obama photos were supposed to influence the vote of any racists in america who didn't already realize Obama was black. That would be, let's see…..nobody.
March 6th, 2008 at 9:37 am
King, just as I often witness the same thing all the Rs have done by nominating a D?
Gimme some time, I'll read back through all your posts (blech) and find the webiste you pointed everyone to that should the percentage of increase in spending the R congress started in 1994…….it thats what it takes to stop the kingspin, so be it. You can have that, by the way, KINGSPIN, no charge. Maybe your first book title? Just mention me in the acknowledgements.
March 7th, 2008 at 7:29 am
da truth,
Much ado about nothing. You seem angry. Why ?
I'll save you some time and link you to a graph that illustrates how the Republican congress held spending down from 1994-2000. It was only after Bush became president that they abandoned fiscal restraint, as I've said repeatedly. No spin here. You can search through as many of my posts as you wish, but you won't find me having ever said anything different.
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/charts_S/s1.cfm
March 7th, 2008 at 8:16 pm
Um, King, did you look at the chart? If they had held spending down, as you say, it would not have increased. The chart shows that REGARDLESS OF WHO HAD CONTROL, spending increased. But thanks for admitting your mistake.
March 8th, 2008 at 8:34 am
da truth,
Wrong. Spending naturally increases over time with inflation. If you really look at that chart, you will see that the 1994-2000 Congress held spending in check better than any other Congress from the 60's forward. C'mon, you can admit it. Everyone already knows it's true.
March 8th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Didn't a Democratic president have to put his signature to those budgets and spending bills in the 90's? And correct me if I'm wrong but…..I don't think the GOP'ers in Congress had a filibuster proof majority, so….theoretically Clinton could have vetoed their fiscal restraint…if what you are saying is true.
Why didn't Clinton do just that? You know, if Democrats are all foaming at the mouth to waste more money….which is the premise of your comments.
You seem to have a case of tunnel vision on this spending stuff. Not that I blame you much. You do have to really focus in to find anything left that's credible within the conservative movement. Other than lawbreaking, money schemes and imperialistic militarism….there just is no there there.
You even approach the spending stuff with a cafeteria mindset. You want to claim that Bush's tax cutting passes the conservative economic litmus test while rejecting Bush's wild borrowing as being part of the conservative program.
Yes, I'll have the fries….but no thanks to the brocccoli.
Cafeteria conservatives.
March 9th, 2008 at 7:49 am
Rev,
I guess we need to review a little history. Clinton did veto some things at first, even shutting down the government because he didn't like the Republican spending cuts, but the Republicans didn't give up, and Clinton was losing public support (that's why the Repubs took Congress to begin with), so he finally got the message that 'it's the economy, stupid' and moved to the center to strike deals with the Republican Congress. Clinton gets kudos for that eventual pragmatism, even if his main reason was to get elected to a second term.
But thanks for the tacit admission of my point to da truth that it was the 1994-2000 Republican Congress who held spending down. I appreciate it.
Then there's this:
"You want to claim that Bush's tax cutting passes the conservative economic litmus test while rejecting Bush's wild borrowing as being part of the conservative program."
Yeah, that's exactly right. Cutting taxes IS a fiscally conservative action, while spending like a drunken sailor ISN'T. The high spending is part of Bush's legacy, but it isn't conservative, it's liberal. What is most disheartening to me is when Republicans abandon fiscal conservatism, as happened during the Bush admin, because when they abandon it, there is nobody left. The Dems will never, ever hold spending down. Unfortunately, the easiest way to get elected is to pander to the people with irresponsible big spending policies. That's the big reason holding spending down is so difficult. Washington is filled with politicians trying to get elected and making promises to do so. That will be the death of america, right there. Hillary/Obama will do their part, and then some. They are outright socialists, although unspoken.