Democrats & Liberals Archives

Straight Talker John McCain

Remember the Straight Talk Express manned by John McCain during the 2000 Republican primary? John McCain told the nation about things as they were. He was so effective, it appeared he would be the Republican nominee for president. Until Rove and Bush smeared him into irrelevancy. Evidently he learned a lesson. Nowadays straight talker John McCain no longer talks straight.

McCain still wants to be president. So for the last couple of years, he has been sucking up to Bush. In 2004, he traveled with Bush and campaigned for Bush, all the while making believe that the two of them were the best of friends. And this is the way it has been ever since.

McCain at one time was the originator of the McCain-Feingold legislation to reduce election corruption. True, the law did not help as much as he had thought it would. But today, when asked if he would introduce new campaign-finance-reform legislation, the straight talker says "No." The new, improved politician does not want money to be a problem for him.

Yesterday, on Meet the Press, McCain told Gregory (standing in for Russert) that we can't win in Iraq with the "Whack-A-Mole" approach: We whack 'em down in one place and the insurgents rise in another place. Gregory said that RNC Chair Ken Mehlman called this strategy "adapting to win." So the straight talker said that what Ken was saying is "correct." Mehlman is correct, even though he does not agree with McCain?!

McCain spent some time expressing his frustration with the way things were going in Iraq and claiming that we needed more troops. Here's a section of the interview:

GREGORY: If more troops are needed, do you think the president's prepared to commit more troops?

SEN. McCAIN: I do not know because I don't know what his thinking is, but I know that the president's committed to win and I know the president's committed to prevail.

MR. GREGORY: But is it your sense that he does not share your view? Because he said repeatedly if more troops are needed, they'll get them.

SEN. McCAIN: Well, it's obvious that I have not shared the administration's view.

After beating around the Bush, McCain finally had to admit he and Bush disagreed.

After expressing his dissatisfaction with the many mistakes Rumsfeld made in Iraq, McCain was asked if Rumsfeld should be fired. The straight talker said that it is up to President Bush.

When asked whether he would campaign for Alan Schlessinger, the Republican candidate for the senate in Connecticut, the straight talker said that the RNC decides where he campaigns. I was surprised to hear that big-shot McCain has nothing to say about where he campaigns. Poor, little McCain.

It seems that we have a new McCain, with a little less straight talk and a lot more pandering and other forms of political expression.

Posted by Paul Siegel at August 21, 2006 5:21 PM
Comments
Comment #176831

You heard it here first: Neither McCain or Hillary will get the nominations in ‘08.

Posted by: nikkolai at August 21, 2006 5:51 PM
Comment #176836

The last straight talking Republican in Congress is Sen. Chuck Hagel. He is saying he doesn’t recognize the Republicans in power today as Republicans he used to vote for. That is straight talk.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 21, 2006 6:02 PM
Comment #176840

I used to really like McCain. He seemed to be a relatively independent politician. I’m trying to remember the specific incident a few years ago that caused me to change my mind, but it eludes me at the moment.

Posted by: Trent at August 21, 2006 6:20 PM
Comment #176842

No way Senator John McCain (R-AZ) would get my vote, because:

  • McCain freely admitted on NPR (2005) to “looking the other way”;

  • McCain claims to be a pork-buster, but later tried to tack on $1 million to a defense appropriations bill for the brown tree snake in Guam … at a time when our troops are risking life and limb (some without body armor).

  • McCain is working to pass a guest worker program for illegal aliens (a.k.a. amnesty program),

  • When 77 hospitals in border states were going bankrupt (because they are being over-run by illegal aliens), Senator John McCain wrote a rider into the Medicaid Bill for $1.4 billion of your tax dollars. It passed (2003). Guess who receives a huge chunk of Medicaid? Illegal aliens. An estimated 28% to 36% of illegal aliens receive welfare. More hospitals have gone bankrupt since then. U.S. tax payers are being forced to foot the bills (conservatively estimated at $70 billion per year). McCain’s position on illegal immigration is essentially another amensty like the one in 1986 that quadrupled the problem. McCain’s position is violating existing laws and endangers our border patrol (a thankless job).

  • McCain voted NO on banning more types of Congressional gifts (Jul 1995).

  • McCain, like Bush, tragically, can not admit a mistake (or mistakes), no matter how many lives it will cost.

  • McCain says Ethanol is not worth it, even in Iowa (Dec 1999), and Ethanol is bad for environment & bad for consumers (Nov 1999). Hmmmmm, tell that to Brazil. How assinine are those statements? Especially when a small percentage of fuel is now ethanol?

  • McCain proclaimed to be against pork-barrel, but then he tacked on a $million earmark to a defense appropriations bill for the brown tree snake in Guam (while our troops risk life and limb and some go without body armor).

  • And McCain is partly responsible for the Social Security ponzi-scheme. McCain Voted YES on using the Social Security Surplus to fund tax reductions (Jul 1999). That’s partly why Social Security is now $12.8 trillion in the hole.

The bar is set so, so, so very low.

It looks like our choices in the next presidential election are going to pathetic (again).

Posted by: d.a.n at August 21, 2006 6:30 PM
Comment #176847

So many ironies, so little time! Back in 2000, McCain was considered the more conservative candidate with a more militaristic bent. Bush painted himself, with the artist formerly known as Rove, as a centrist, a moderate, a “uniter, not a divider.” It’s amazing to me that more Americans haven’t seen the bitter irony in Bush’s words vs. actions. And in the last five years, it’s only gotten worse with the support, or blind eye, of congress. But if Rove doesn’t have pictures of McCain, it’s hard to figure out his sudden support for Bush after their bitter primary battle. It’s hard not to have respect for McCain after his military experience, but maybe Rove and Bush have done to him what the VC never could!

Posted by: randy at August 21, 2006 6:42 PM
Comment #176850

McCain Vs Hillary? I’ll take a John McCain over Hillary anytime.

Now, aren’t you folks telling Hillary to suck up to the radical left if she wants to be president? LAUGH.

Your problem with Hillary in 08 are little things. Things like family members selling presidential pardons to criminals, stealing the Whitehouse furniture on the way out the door, lying about Travel Gate, lying about what she knew about Monica, taking 100K bribe from that dirty broker (You know, her miracle turning of 1,000 dollars into 100,000K by ‘reading the journal’, trying to socialize 1/7th of the nations economy and being rejected by her own party, selling off the lincoln Bedroom to raise campaign finances, crooked staff going to jail (covering for her), the FBI enemies files fiasco, etc etc.

Democrats of course don’t talk about these things, they merely smear McCain and possibly mention that Hillary has “baggage”. Yeah, I’ll say she has baggage and we are going to hear about it again and again and again right through the election.

There has got to be someone more honest, less dishonest and corrupt that you can run besides Hillary. McCain is going to crush her….and you folks will once again be claiming the election was “stolen”.

Posted by: Stephen at August 21, 2006 6:45 PM
Comment #176851

As far as I’m concerned John McCain get the ass kisser of the decade award(and I voted for him in the Michigan primary in 2000 and would have voted for him for President).

Posted by: mark at August 21, 2006 6:45 PM
Comment #176852

Stephen

No way is McCain is going to crush Hillary because neither will be running for President after the primaries are over(unless they run as Independents). I give Hillary a better shot at winning the nomination than McCain.

Posted by: mark at August 21, 2006 6:50 PM
Comment #176858

“After expressing his dissatisfaction with the many mistakes Rumsfeld made in Iraq, McCain was asked if Rumsfeld should be fired. The straight talker said that it is up to President Bush.”

This isn’t recent. Mccain always took that position. I remember him saying that back in 2003.

Posted by: robert at August 21, 2006 7:05 PM
Comment #176859

Mark,

Right now the numbers say Clinton & McCain have huge leads over their nearest competitors. Hillary has the money, the power, the favors, and the votes. I don’t see the progressives as having enough power to run her out, in the end we are going to be seeing progressives making excuses for Hillarys lies and crimes all the way into the 08 election. You wait…it’s gonna happen.

And I can tell you that the right is NOT AFRAID of McCain, they see him as ELECTABLE….he’s gonna snack on Hillarys side of the isle, the moderates are going with McCain and Hillary will be sunk. And if the progressives have their way, Hillary will have to move even further to the left…something shes begging them not to make her do. Hillary knows that her only hope of winning this thing is to get the moderates to beleive she is moderate. A hard thing for an anti military liberal who graduated from a lezbian college to do. But shes making all the right noises right now….trying to appear moderate.

Remember when Liberals were begging McCain to cross over and run with Kerry? Remember libs claiming the reason they hated Bush was because he “smeared” McCain (something Bush never did)? Yes, the former darling of the left, McCain, is now a rapid right wing necon demon they must defeat…LAUGH.

The proof of the pudding will be who do the people in the middle vote for? War Hero McCain or Corrupt Hillary? You guys better start trying to put libstick on that pig you are running because you aren’t going to be able to really smear McCain to the moderates.

I’ll give you this. As much as I feel that War-Hero McCain and Never-Served Hillary have their respective party nominations wrapped up….we are talking about the future and by definition….no one can know for sure. I think I’m right, but it’s obviously not written in stone.

Posted by: Stephen at August 21, 2006 7:08 PM
Comment #176861

Stephen

Have you ever heard Rush talk about McCain. With all the ditto heads running around out there I see no way McCain get the nomination. Hillary maybe(I hope not), but not McCain. Unless he kisses Rush’s ass well enough.

Posted by: mark at August 21, 2006 7:18 PM
Comment #176863

This perfectly illustrates part of the problem with the democratic party. We spend so much time and energy pointing out with what is wrong with ther other candidates and other parties that we fail to focus on our own party… and how we can make that party better. The “anybody but Bush” strategy during the last election proves that yet again.

I, for one, even though I am a whole-hearted democrat, do not want Hilary to run for President, nor do I want her elected. I know thats a *traitorous* statement. But here’s why: After this ungodly debaucle with Bush, Cheney and Rove, we need a centrist. Someone who can actually work with the other side, because I doubt we’ll have control over both the congress and the White House. It would be nice too, but not realistic. Even if it was a majority, it would be only a by a seat or two.

Hilary is a fantastic politician and very good with what she does. I agree with a lot of her stances, but do not like her polarization. She will motivate just as many if not more Republicans against her, than Democrats for her. She does has baggage - all politicians do. Hers, unfortuantely, are well documented and rather embarrasing.


McCain is probably a better option (between the two), but only is he returns to his “maverick” ways and returns to the McCain a lot of democrats and independents have respect for. Its a political tightrope he’s walking, and he’s in grace danger of falling off.

I would LOVE to find a democratic nominee centrist enough - NOT pandering to the extreme left - that can carry the nomination. I’m tired of eight long years of catering to the far end of the spectrum.

Hopefully we can find one.

Posted by: Jennifer at August 21, 2006 7:25 PM
Comment #176864

Jennifer

If Hillary can work with Newt Gingrich and is a pal of Joe Lieberman doesn’t that sort of qualify her as a centrist?

How about Evan Bahy as a centrist? Elected five times in sate wide races in Red state Indiana.

Posted by: mark at August 21, 2006 7:33 PM
Comment #176865

Had McCain won the nomination in 2000 he would have gotten my vote, now after seeing him kiss up to Bush I doubt it. As far as who I will vote for in 2008 I don’t know, but it wont be a Bush buddy. The thing that makes it so hard to me is the plain and simple truth, an honest man or woman, a truly honest person will not be running in 2008, a truly honest person cant put together the support to be elected in this country or world for that matter, so that leaves trying to choose the lesser of two evils. I hope we do better in the next election than we did in the last, party doesn’t really matter both are corrupt, sad but true.

Posted by: jim at August 21, 2006 7:34 PM
Comment #176867

Stephen,
Yes, there’s much more dirt on Hillary, and McCain would be much better (probably) … hard to tell sometimes, when they get on a crusade (like Bush).

Hillary is greedy.
Look at she spends on her office.
More than anyone.

It will be the most expensive hometown office of any senator, according to the General Services Administration. The rent is $90,000 a year more than that paid by Sen. Diane Feinstein, D-Calif., and more than double the $209,532 paid by Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., for offices one block away.

She abuses everything possible (www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=20782).

Hillary Clinton:

  • Took a $100,000 bribe, camouflaged as futures trades, from Tyson Foods Inc.

  • Speculated in Health Care industry futures while overseeing legislative reform of same.

  • Failed to correct false testimony by co-defendant Ira Magaziner in Health Care trial.

  • Obstructed justice by ordering the shredding of Vince Foster’s documents in the Rose Law Firm.

  • Ordered members of the Health Care Task Force to shred documents that were the target of a court probe.

  • Ordered the removal of documents from Vince Foster’s office and told aides to lie about their removal of documents.

  • Obstructed justice by keeping her billing records, a document sought under subpoena, in the White House residence.

  • Lied to investigators about her knowledge about billing records.

  • Lied to investigators about her involvement in the Castle Grande land flip con.

  • Ordered the use of the FBI to discredit Travel Office employees.

  • Lied to investigators about her involvement in the firing of Travel Office Employees.

  • A Federal judge orders a trial on July 25, 1994 to determine if Hillary Clinton’s health care task force illegally operated in secret.

  • The White House finally releases more than 2,000 documents on June 25, 1996, relating to the travel office firings, originally requested two years ago by congressional investigators.

  • Voted YES on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security. (May 2006)

  • Voted NO on require photo ID (not just signature) for voter registration. (Feb 2002)

So, they’re both irresponsible.
Compare that with McCain’s record.

The bar is set so, so, so very low.

But, if Democrats nominate Hillary, they will most likely lose. That is not a good choice at all. The only thing that might change that is if Republicans nominate someone as bad or worse. That could easily happen.

But, if Hillary gets nominated, she will spend a lot of time trying to defend that colorful stuff above.

Hillary is a chameleon.

She will try to appear to be what you want, but you can bet your [explicative] it is just an act.

Hillary, who is sworn to uphold the Constitution, is one the biggest violators of the fundamental principles and statutes relating to fair elections and honest government. Hillary’s campaign organization filed false FEC documents. Rosen was acquitted of filing false statements to the FEC, but the trial established that Paul contributed more than $1.2 million of his own personal funds to Hillary Clinton’s campaign in an attempt to persuade President Bill Clinton to become a spokesman for his businesses when he left office.

Talk about a culture of corruption. And, that is just the tip of the giant iceberg of corruption.

Most Democrats seem to like Hillary. That’s why they will probably lose, if they nominate her.

We need much better choices !

How about the one simple thing we were always supposed to do?

  • Stop Repeat Offenders.

  • Don’t Re-Elect Them !

Posted by: d.a.n at August 21, 2006 7:39 PM
Comment #176868

If Hillary’s campaign includes 1) Ending Deficit Spending, 2) Ending our involvement within the borders of the Iraqi Civil War, but remaining in neighboring nations to contain the Civil War from overspilling the borders and involving other nations, and 3) calling for election, campaign, and tax reform, she WILL BE A CENTRIST and she will very likely win not only the nomination, but the Presidency as well.

Can she pull that shift in her campaign platform off? Well, that is the question, isn’t it? McCain could not run on that kind of centrist platform. Therefore, Hillary has far more potential than McCain of ever winning in 2008.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 21, 2006 7:39 PM
Comment #176870

David,
I wouldn’t trust Hillary any futher than I could throw her fat ass.

Posted by: d.a.n at August 21, 2006 7:46 PM
Comment #176872

The president is committed to win and to prevail…what does that mean? Is there a way of prevailing without winning or a way of winning without prevailing? McCain is the guy we like of their people, so they will probably nominate Allen of VA. Maybe obnoxious drunk is now a qualification for their nomination.

Jennifer – Evan Bayh is your guy

Hillary has a unique place in history as a former first lady and senator, and I trust her spending more than any Rpblcn. She is too conservative for me, like Bayh, but we want to get hold of as many branches of government as we can, to end the strange agenda of reversal of values, to which we have become subjected under Bushco.

Posted by: ohrealy at August 21, 2006 7:57 PM
Comment #176875

Uuhhhmmm…. “further” instead of “futher”.
Sorry for the misspelling.
Boy, does that sound “suthun”?

Posted by: d.a.n at August 21, 2006 8:00 PM
Comment #176879

d.a.n

“farther”, if you’re talking about the distance you could throw her “fat ass”.

Posted by: Mental Wimp at August 21, 2006 8:17 PM
Comment #176880

From d.a.n.’s link

Clinton is paying $91 a square foot for the usable space, Kennedy said, just under the limit of $91.14 set by the GSA. The building is owned by the Teachers Insurance Annuity Association of America.

I am shocked, SHOCKED that Hillary is renting a huge office at the absolute maximum price allowed by law — coming from the Public’s pocketbooks and going to one of the main groups picking the DNC nominee (ABC News reported in 1990 that one eleventh: 9% (or maybe one ninth which is 11% — I forget) of all delegates to the DNC is a member of the Teachers Union.

My, what a coincidence!!

Posted by: Brian at August 21, 2006 8:20 PM
Comment #176881

Correction — in 2000 (Gore’s Democratic Nat’l Convention).

Posted by: Brian at August 21, 2006 8:23 PM
Comment #176883
“farther”, if you’re talking about the distance you could throw her “fat ass”.
Ha ha ha! Who’s the mental whimp? Touche. Posted by: d.a.n at August 21, 2006 8:29 PM
Comment #176897

d.a.n. How rude.Lets see,former first lady. That means Secret Service bodygards…Please,please try and throw her “fat ass.”


All. Hillary vs. McCain no choice there. A war candidate or a more war candidate. The best way to get out of Iraq? Ship or plane,either is good.

Posted by: BillS at August 21, 2006 9:34 PM
Comment #176900

Democrats loved McCain as long as they thought he was fighting Bush. It is sort of like Republican’s embrace of Joe Lieberman.

McCain will do well with Independents and moderate Dems. The Bush haters will transfer their hate to McCain, but it will be a little diluted.

McCain needs to make peace with the mainstream of the Republican Party. That is where his real support will be. As we have seen, the sunshine soldiers give up when the going gets tough.

I supported McCain in 2000. If he runs I will support him in 2008. George Allen’s recent implosion means I won’t have to oppose a Virginian. I actually think Mitt Romney would be a great president. Maybe he can be VP.

In any case, McCain will beat any Dem like a drum. His only challenge will come from the home team.

Posted by: Jack at August 21, 2006 9:39 PM
Comment #176901

Jack: What is Mcains take on Social Security?

Posted by: BillS at August 21, 2006 9:45 PM
Comment #176909

Jack said: “McCain will do well with Independents and moderate Dems. “

No, Jack, he won’t. He is a war hawk. That is not where the majority of independents and moderate Dem’s reside on the political foreign policy spectrum. They are for war in defense of our homeland, not war for domino theories overseas.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 21, 2006 10:36 PM
Comment #176910

d.a.n, but do you trust any politician? :-) I don’t, until they have proven themselves one way or another. All politicians are prone to say whatever is necessary to be elected. Only perhaps, a few, act in accordance with what they say or for the nation’s benefit first and foremost, after elected.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 21, 2006 10:41 PM
Comment #176911

d.a.n, btw, what has posterior size or Bush’s knee curature have to do with leadership? My sergeant major in the Army stood 6’8” with the most knock kneed legs I had ever seen. He was an outstanding NCO leader however.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 21, 2006 10:44 PM
Comment #176913

“The last straight talking Republican in Congress is Sen. Chuck Hagel.”

Yes David! He even reminded everyone how far the Republican Party has strayed from their principles:
“Hagel says GOP has lost its way”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14453249/

Of course I disagree with the true Republican attack on the “Welfare state” but, he at least deserves respect as a true Republican and he shows true concern for our armed forces.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at August 21, 2006 10:49 PM
Comment #176920

He made a deal to throw Bush is support in 2004 in exchange for the support in 2008. But now, McCain is too old. Next!

Did anyone notice it was especially obvious that Bush was wearing a wire at the press conference today?

The pauses between sentences while he gazed up and off to his right, listening, the meaningless filler phrases while someone fed him stock answers, the strange transitions, the lack of coherent ideas…

It is kind of weird. But what is even weirder is that no one comments. Apparently everyone is good with this. My bad. I will go back to my book.

Posted by: phx8 at August 21, 2006 11:11 PM
Comment #176925

Jennifer:

“I would LOVE to find a democratic nominee centrist enough - NOT pandering to the extreme left - that can carry the nomination. I’m tired of eight long years of catering to the far end of the spectrum.”

What the hell are you talking about? The Democratic party couldn’t find the ‘extreme left’ with a map! We’ve been awash in centerist mayonnaise candidates since Bill Clinton.

This comment is indicative of a national political
conversation that has been driven so far right that Robert Byrd looks like a raving socialist, and Al Gore is the reincarnation of Vladamir Lenin.
Sheesh!


Posted by: Tim Crow at August 21, 2006 11:37 PM
Comment #176934

“This comment is indicative of a national political
conversation that has been driven so far right that Robert Byrd looks like a raving socialist, and Al Gore is the reincarnation of Vladamir Lenin.”

Now, that’s priceless! Thanks Tim!

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at August 22, 2006 12:23 AM
Comment #176938

In 2008, we can bet on one thing at least:that every candidates dirt will be dug through thoroughly and brought to light. Plus, each side will invent some lies about the other, too.

What Hillary really is, lib or moderate, is irrelevant. Average reps already see her as liberal, and it wouldn’t take much smearing to reinforce that. I doubt many Religious Right leaders fear her. She would just let them beat the abortion and gay marriage drums even louder. YAY! Even more loathing and polarization! I say that if Hillary loves America, she will not run just to prevent any more polarization, the last thing we really need. My dream ticket:Mitt Romney and Evan Bayh or a different moderate-left Dem. But good luck with that. Neither “energizes the base,” the Holy Grail of campaigning.

Nope. We’ll see plenty of gay-bashing, anti-abortion, “liberals hate the family and they hate America,” crap from Republicans and lots of Bushco and Iraq bashing, vast right-wing conspiracies and talk about the Religious Right from Dems. If Reps win Dems will say they stole the election, if Dems win Reps will blame the liberal media. I love America.

Posted by: Silima at August 22, 2006 12:52 AM
Comment #176942

“Did anyone notice it was especially obvious that Bush was wearing a wire at the press conference today?”

Yes!

And there seemed to be a change in his general demeanor. If I’m not mistaken he actually told the truth at least once. Without searching for an exact quote, I believe he was asked what Iraq had to do with 9-11, and Bush replied, “NOTHING”!

But, I’m admittedly on a sh**load of pain meds!

Just call me “Rush” Dem.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at August 22, 2006 2:03 AM
Comment #176949

I wouldn’t wish either McCain and his far right christian conservatives on the United States as president…and neither would I wish Hillary Clinton, a Bush supporter for Iraq, to become President of the United States. The two have strayed far afield from their own supporters in their respective parties.

Posted by: John at August 22, 2006 5:56 AM
Comment #176951

Kansas Dem, but, just prior to answering that question he made statements as in the past that justified invading Iraq as a means of getting the 9/11 terrorists. When asked point blank about the obvious interpretation of his previous statement, he then, point blank, said no connection.

The President is playing to two audiences. Those who hear what they want to hear, and those who hold him to his words. Not sure, but, to me it appears to be an uninspiring performance. But, then, language is something I was trained to be careful and more precise with, than most.

But Bush did try to make the argument that Iraq was going to be a breeding ground for terrorism, though he did not specify that it would be a breeding ground for terrorists against the U.S.

Still, the fact was, terrorism would never have been tolerated in Iraq under Saddam. Terrorists were a threat to his own power by their very definition. Saddam had no problem supporting terrorists outside of Iraq who were targeting Israel. That was a means to keeping his people united behind a common enemy in the region, according to him.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 22, 2006 7:19 AM
Comment #176952

I think people perceive Hillary as more of a centrist than they used to, and not without reason.

It is funny how the rights view of Hillary has changed. For years, Republicans have been convinced that Hillary was unelectable in a general election, but that Democrats were so in love with her that they couldn’t resist nominating her. (The truth: It isn’t so much that we love her, as you really, really hate her.) First it was going to happen in 2004, then it was supposed to happen in 2008. NOW, with the Lamont victory, the theory is that Hillary is in trouble. Following the Republican logic, then, Democrats are saved. Hooray! ;)


Posted by: Woody Mena at August 22, 2006 7:27 AM
Comment #176956

Just now questioning the “Straight Talk Express”?
McCain either:
1-Took too many boots to the skull in POW camp
2-Is ideologically confused
3-Is a pandering politicial like 95% of the rest.

I think its a combination of all, but McCains “Double Talk Express” is simply a product of modern politics which treats the intellectually lazy and the ignorant as equal to the responsible voters who actually understand current events, history, economics and liberty.

You pander to the masses while trying not to alienate the rest too much. McCain has done a masterful job of just that.

Posted by: Matt Goldseth at August 22, 2006 8:17 AM
Comment #176963

We need better choices, but all we get are irresponsible, bought-and-paid-for incumbent politicians.

d.a.n, but do you trust any politician? :-) I don’t, until they have proven themselves one way or another.

Not many. That’s the problem. Most politicians have proven themselves, based on their voting records.

If Democrats want to win back the Executive Branch, they might want to find something better than Hillary. If Republicans want to hold on to the Executive Branch, they might want to find something better than McCain.

But, of those two, who is more corrupt?
Hillary is definitely, hands down, far more corrupt.

We need better choices, but the system (a culture of corruption) seems uncapable of providing any.

Who ever gets elected, they are going to have problems, as the economy (quite likely) starts the next recession.

Posted by: d.a.n at August 22, 2006 10:00 AM
Comment #176966

I’ve never liked McCain. The admiration of the left just reinforces it. If you want to see a straight talking member of Congress (the only one) of either party take a look at Ron Paul.

Posted by: traveller at August 22, 2006 10:23 AM
Comment #176967

A poll on CNN (22-AUG-2006:09:25CST) just reported 46% were going to vote for a non-incumbent, and only 21% would vote for any incumbent.

Posted by: d.a.n at August 22, 2006 10:50 AM
Comment #176968

d.a.n.,

What is the coorelation between past polls on the topic, if they exist, and actual voting? Honest question; I’m not baiting.

Posted by: Trent at August 22, 2006 10:55 AM
Comment #176969

I’d prefer Rudy as our guy, and Gore for the dems.

Posted by: nikkolai at August 22, 2006 10:57 AM
Comment #176970

Let’s just vote for Joe Biden.

Posted by: Tired at August 22, 2006 11:18 AM
Comment #176972

Jack,

“Democrats loved McCain as long as they thought he was fighting Bush.”

Whatever are you talking about? Seriously. While some (many, even) Democrats might have preferred McCain to Bush, that doesn’t at mean that anyone “loved McCain.” To my way of thinking, any sane person would prefer McCain to Bush based solely on the seriousness and professionalism that McCain possesses and the President lacks. Your intellectual dishonesty, as always, is a marvel to behold.

As to a Giuliani candidacy, how well do folks on the Wrong think his well-demonstrated pro-choice, pro-same sex marriage and pro-adultery (moved his mistress into Gracie Mansion!) record will stand in the Midwest and South?

Anecdotally, I have a couple of friends who work in my (Republican) Congresswoman’s office, and I am consistently stunned by the party apparatus’ wholesale distaste for McCain. Don’t people understand that he votes with the Republican leadership 90% of the time? Why does the far-right fringe dominate Republican politics?

Posted by: Arr-squared at August 22, 2006 11:35 AM
Comment #176973

I liked McCain way back then because I thought if he won the nomination we might have actually had a high-level of debate in this country on the issues. Gore versus McCain might have achieved that. Instead, we got what we got.

Posted by: Trent at August 22, 2006 11:43 AM
Comment #176975

Jennifer:

I couldn’t agree more. Hillary is too divisive and lord knows we need to put our fractured political machine back to work.

For the Dems: I’m very impressed with Joe Biden. He has all the qualities I look for in a President. Don’t know why he’s not getting talked up more. He’s great!

For the Reps: I never thought I’d say this, but seems like getting out of the beltway has been good for Newt. I hated his attacks on Clinton, but lately he sounds more thoughtful, and has put forth some really interesting ideas re solving our multitude of problems.

I hope both parties can find a nominee who has education, native intelligence, and will begin to heal our political wounds and restore common sense and constitutionality to the executive branch.

Hang in there, kansas dem, I love to hear from you, and as another somewhat disabled senior with a pot load of meds, I can relate……

Maggie Rose

Posted by: MaggieRose at August 22, 2006 12:07 PM
Comment #176977
Nope. We’ll see plenty of gay-bashing, anti-abortion, “liberals hate the family and they hate America,” crap from Republicans

Which is pretty funny, considering the fundamentalist so-called “Christian” base of the Republicans has the highest divorce rate in the U.S…..some “family” values!!

Posted by: Lynne at August 22, 2006 12:14 PM
Comment #176978

Trent, the last time similar poll results were evident was in 1994, when Republicans took control.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 22, 2006 12:45 PM
Comment #176979

Trent,
I don’t recall hearing previous poll numbers of voters saying they will vote non-incumbent ever being so high … not even in 1994.
Not sure about what the sheople will actually do … probably re-elect a bunch of irresponsible incumbent politicians (as usual).

Posted by: d.a.n at August 22, 2006 12:48 PM
Comment #176981

“Have you ever heard Rush talk about McCain. With all the ditto heads running around out there I see no way McCain get the nomination. Hillary maybe(I hope not), but not McCain. Unless he kisses Rush’s ass well enough.”

I’m sorry but any time I hear Coulter or Rush being held in such high esteem I just roll my eyes and laugh. I really feel badly for these poor idiots who listen to his show and truly believe that he is a good reference to cite. AND they actually believe that they belong to some gigantic club of Rush listeners who are a secret force to be reckoned with. Reality check: Rush is a wacko who preys on the weak-minded, paranoid delusions of the less intelligent people who have nothing better to do in the late morning than listen to a fat drug addict teach morality - that is, why it is ok to have none.

After putting “Rush Limbaugh audience numbers” in Google I found this as well as tons of similar critiques:

“Rush Limbaugh claims he has an audience of 20 million listeners. Very impressive.

So Limbaugh has an audience of 20 million.

20 million is a lot of people right? Yes and it would be even more impressive if 20 million people actually listened to Rush Limbaugh. Fortunately they don’t. Let’s take a look at how they arrived at 20 million in the first place. You’ll see that just like most of Limbaugh’s preachings, his ratings are a little slight of hand, some outright falsehoods, and a whole lot of twisting the facts to fit his claims.

Limbaugh’s 20 million is the total number of possible listeners for a week. If you listen closely they actually say he reaches an audience of 20 million people every week. So does NPR but does that mean all 20 million are actually listening? Obviously not. Just because you can reach an audience with your signal doesn’t mean they’ll actually tune you in.

Just for fun, give Rush the benefit of the doubt here. Let’s say his total number of listeners in a week is actually 20 million people. Very impressive again right? Not so fast. That total is what is simply the number of people who tuned him in at one point or another during a week. That means that they added up the numbers from every show for a week and the total is where they got the 20 million. So in reality all the nut jobs that listen to him every day were counted 5 times in his weekly total. It does not mean by any definition that 20 million separate people listened to his show during a week. It simply means that the same people who listen over and over were counted 5 times. Imagine if we could find a way to make our vote count 5 times.

Now let’s break it down some more. Of the total listeners every day. Many of them may have only listened for 5-10 minutes or what is known as a quarter-hour. Doesn’t matter. They count towards the total. So now we have people who are listening for a few minutes being thrown into this very impressive total. They aren’t listening from 12 to 3 every day. They simply show up as a listener for at least 15 minutes. Now if you listen for only 30 seconds but you write it down in your little Arbitron diary guess what, Rush Limbaugh picks up another quarter- hour. A person literally could have been listening by accident but they just happened to be an honest diary keeper and Rush gets their rating. Takes some of the shine off the whole thing don’t you think?

The real number you want to look at is called the AQH. That is the Average Quarter Hour. That is where you might get a better idea of how many people are actually listening to Limbaugh. And the AQH will give you the true size of his audience.

The AQH is the number of people listening during any quarter-hour of Limbaugh’s show. That’s the true audience and I promise you it’s not 20 million. Not even close. It might be 3 million and that’s pushing it. Still those are truly great numbers in Radio. Trust me, there are radio people out there who would sacrifice their family to a volcano for an AQH of 3 million. But it’s hardly the 20 million that Big Fat Rush would have you think it is.

Let’s break it down some more. Limbaugh is on about 640 stations. So let’s take the AQH rating and see where we really are in terms of audience size.

3 million actual listeners divided by 640 stations. That comes out to 4687.5 listeners per station. Obviously that isn’t how it works but that is the average number of listeners per station. Clearly a station in Cleveland will have a much larger total than one in Auburn, NY just because the markets are so different in size but you get the gist.

I won’t even go into the details of how incredibly flawed and unreliable radio research is. I’ll just say that it would get laughed out of any sociology convention. The participants are about as reliable as Rush Limbaugh’s facts which is to say not very.

After further review and a little scrutiny it seems that Rush Limbaugh’s ratings and his alleged audience of 20 million are a lot like Rush Limbaugh’s show. Big and blustery but unable to withstand scrutiny of any kind. Simply stated, he lies about his ratings just like he lies about most everything else.

He may even have an audience of 3 million but all that means is that 272 million people AREN’T listening to him.”

So, ditto-heads, I fail to see any threat from your “movement” - just the exploitation of the fear that electing any democrat will bring about Armageddon.

Posted by: Kevin23 at August 22, 2006 1:29 PM
Comment #176992

Sometimes it seems that you can divide the American electorate in to two groups. In the first (larger) group you have the legions of apathy who are blind and deaf to politics until its their money that gets taken or their son or daughter that gets killed.

The second group of which most members of this group can claim allegiance are political snobs! Ready to wallow in cynicism at the first sign that a politician is acting “political”. So McCain is now a Bush clone because he’s pulling some punches, and is making all nice? Does anyone recall where his Straight Talk Express ended last time?

If we as Democrats still desire to see the noble failure over the tarnished victory, maybe we need to fail some more! This is democracy people! There are no white knights and prince charmings. Monarchies have those. Quit looking for a hero. The rules of the game boil down to what the People will support/tolerate. Bush was elected just as much by those of you who were holding out for better-than-Gore/Kerry, as he was by those who fell for that Compassionate Conservative line.

Bill Clinton is my favorite case in point. Clinton was an intelligent and gifted leader in my opinion. But those qualities didn’t get him elected. He played the game, he schmoozed, he threw the muck as good as Rove. And the country was stronger for the fact that he did.

I for one am overjoyed than McCain is willing to play the game a bit. I’m sorry that he has to, but responsibility for that must ultimately lie with the electorate and there’s no point going there. And I look forward to a matchup between McCain, and Hillary Clinton; both highly intelligent and passionate leaders who WANT TO LEAD enough to want to win. With such able candidates, I might even be able to cast a vote based on the issues rather than competance for just once.

Posted by: Mike Cooper at August 22, 2006 3:47 PM
Comment #176995

Trent,
Here’s the incumbency rates over the last 50 years.
There may have been periods of much higher anti-incumbent sentiment than now (e.g. 1952, 1958, 1966, 1976, 1980, 1986, 1992, 1992).
But, here is what we need …
A number of things are really tickin’ off the voters, and bought-and-paid-for incumbent politicians are largely responsible for it. Still, voters are easy to fool, and they may need to experience a lot more pain and misery before they even feel like bothering to vote, much less vote out irresponsible incumbent politicians.

I shudder to think of Hillary Clinton as president, but is it really that important anymore, with the bar set so low? Can it get much worse? That is, we may already be too far down the wrong path? Our problems are most likely to the point where they will start solving themsevles, the hard way, regardless of what we do.

Posted by: d.a.n at August 22, 2006 4:42 PM
Comment #177000

D.A.N.

I tend to agree with about your position regarding incumbents, but who on earth is left? Someone that might actually have a chance at winning an election FOR the PEOPLE?

I’d love to hear your answers\suggestions for both parties. I would truly like to have the opportunity to vote FOR someone, instead of what I now see as the lesser of the Two Evils.

Also, please explain to me how the public finds out about these people - that is: name recognition, and platform. I would prefer someone who hasn’t already been in office and hasn’t already done something stupid.

I’m not sure that’s possible…


Posted by: Linda H. at August 22, 2006 5:28 PM
Comment #177001

Kevin:

I listen to Rush Limbaugh only infrequently, but I find him somewhat entertaining at times. At other times he’s just bombastic.

I think you miss the point with all your mathematical information above. The bottom line is that Rush Limbaugh, love him or hate him, is the most popular talk radio show host on the air. I don’t care how they discuss his numbers (whether its 20 mill or 3 mill, whether they listen for 45 minutes or 5 minutes etc). He has more listeners than other hosts do, using the same criteria for all of them.

What does this mean? It means simply that he is successful in getting people to listen to him. A surprising number of “liberals” seem to know precisely what he discusses on a daily basis—-I doubt Rush cares what their political orientation is as long as they listen.

I find him to be an entertainer with a slant on the political scene. He’s essentially what Jon Stewart is, only not as funny.

He has been an effective tool in the arsenal of the GOP. He does have a galvanizing effect on a lot of people, and a lesser effect on even more. And some hate him and do the exact opposite out of spite for him.

His success is really an interesting phenomenon. Most people thought his success was fueled by having a Democratic President, but his ratings are still up there with a Rep President. No one has done what he’s done before.

Whether you love him, hate him or ignore him, he is a part of the political scenery.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at August 22, 2006 5:30 PM
Comment #177002

Kevin23,

That was a very interesting bit of analysis. I learned something; thanks for posting.

Posted by: Arr-squared at August 22, 2006 5:38 PM
Comment #177008

I am a Dem but would have voted for John McCain over Hilary, had he not changed. But now with his vulgar stance, my vote goes to Hilary! There is nothing more unsightly than vulgar vomit with different colors!

Posted by: JonhJohn at August 22, 2006 6:31 PM
Comment #177023
Linda H. wrote: D.A.N. I tend to agree with about your position regarding incumbents, but who on earth is left? Someone that might actually have a chance at winning an election FOR the PEOPLE?

Linda H.,
Those are good questions, and I have logical answers for each …

It doesn’t matter that much. It’s not rocket science. There are lots of qualified people. But re-electing irresponsible incumbents is not the way. We were never supposed to keep re-electing irresponsible incumbents, ever. What matters more is that the new incumbents get the message.

Linda H. wrote: I’d love to hear your answers\suggestions for both parties. I would truly like to have the opportunity to vote FOR someone, instead of what I now see as the lesser of the Two Evils.
My recommendation is to vote for challengers to replace any irresponsible incumbent. Go here to determine if your incumbent is responsible or not. There is a reason why no one can list 10, 20, 50, 100, or even 268 (half of 535) in Congress that are responsible. Many try. It’s not hard to show the culture of corruption. My Senators and Representative are NOT getting my vote.
Linda H. wrote: Also, please explain to me how the public finds out about these people - that is: name recognition, and platform. I would prefer someone who hasn’t already been in office and hasn’t already done something stupid.
Challengers are on the ballots. Lots of web-sites can show you the challengers. For example, go here (VOID Challangers List) and enter your ZIP code, or look through the list. Here’s some another candidate lists:
  • www.modernvertebrate.com/elections/2006-national/
  • www.congress.org/fvpf/e4/
  • en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Senate_election,_2006
  • www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/2006_Senate_Elections
  • www.dcpoliticalreport.com
  • http://issues2000.org/Candidates.htm

That is what voters were supposed to be doing all along, always.

  • Never, were voters supposed to lazily pull the party lever, or vote strictly along the party line. That is how irresponsible incumbent politicians fool and control voters, by fueling the petty partisan warfare, while the nation falls apart right before our very eyes.

  • Never, were voters supposed to wallow in the petty partisan warfare. What good are parties if irresponsible, bought-and-paid-for incumbent politicians in both parties just take turns using and abusing everyone ?

  • Never, were voters supposed to empower the very same irresponsible, bought-and-paid-for incumbent politicians that use and abuse us.

  • Never, were voters supposed to be so blinded by the petty partisan warfare, that they are oblivious to our serious problems as they grow in number and severity.

  • Never, was government supposed to be FOR-SALE, where too many bought-and-paid-for incumbent politicians are too beholding to a few big-money puppeteers with vast wealth and power (instead of the voters).

  • Never, were voters supposed to ignore their government, as they do now, because that invites abuse and breeds corruption.

Nothing fancy.
Nothing complicated.
Not yet another new party or candidate.
Not yet another vast scheme or conspiracy.
Just a little plain old common sense.
Just the one simple, no-brainer, common-sense thing voters were supposed to do all along, always.
that is all.

  • Stop Repeat Offenders.

  • Don’t Re-Elect Them !

Posted by: d.a.n at August 22, 2006 7:50 PM
Comment #177024
Linda H. wrote: D.A.N. I tend to agree with about your position regarding incumbents, but who on earth is left? Someone that might actually have a chance at winning an election FOR the PEOPLE?

Linda H.,
Those are good questions, and I have logical answers for each …

It doesn’t matter that much. It’s not rocket science. There are lots of qualified people. But re-electing irresponsible incumbents is not the way. We were never supposed to keep re-electing irresponsible incumbents, ever. What matters more is that the new incumbents get the message.

Linda H. wrote: I’d love to hear your answers\suggestions for both parties. I would truly like to have the opportunity to vote FOR someone, instead of what I now see as the lesser of the Two Evils.
My recommendation is to vote for challengers to replace any irresponsible incumbent. Go here to determine if your incumbent is responsible or not. There is a reason why no one can list 10, 20, 50, 100, or even 268 (half of 535) in Congress that are responsible. Many try. It’s not hard to show the culture of corruption. My Senators and Representative are NOT getting my vote.
Linda H. wrote: Also, please explain to me how the public finds out about these people - that is: name recognition, and platform. I would prefer someone who hasn’t already been in office and hasn’t already done something stupid.
Challengers are on the ballots. Lots of web-sites can show you the challengers. For example, go here (VOID Challangers List) and enter your ZIP code, or look through the list. Here’s some another candidate lists:
  • www.modernvertebrate.com/elections/2006-national/
  • www.congress.org/fvpf/e4/
  • en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Senate_election,_2006
  • www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/2006_Senate_Elections
  • www.dcpoliticalreport.com
  • issues2000.org/Candidates.htm

That is what voters were supposed to be doing all along, always.

  • Never, were voters supposed to lazily pull the party lever, or vote strictly along the party line. That is how irresponsible incumbent politicians fool and control voters, by fueling the petty partisan warfare, while the nation falls apart right before our very eyes.

  • Never, were voters supposed to wallow in the petty partisan warfare. What good are parties if irresponsible, bought-and-paid-for incumbent politicians in both parties just take turns using and abusing everyone ?

  • Never, were voters supposed to empower the very same irresponsible, bought-and-paid-for incumbent politicians that use and abuse us.

  • Never, were voters supposed to be so blinded by the petty partisan warfare, that they are oblivious to our serious problems as they grow in number and severity.

  • Never, was government supposed to be FOR-SALE, where too many bought-and-paid-for incumbent politicians are too beholding to a few big-money puppeteers with vast wealth and power (instead of the voters).

  • Never, were voters supposed to ignore their government, as they do now, because that invites abuse and breeds corruption.

Nothing fancy.
Nothing complicated.
Not yet another new party or candidate.
Not yet another vast scheme or conspiracy.
Just a little plain old common sense.
Just the one simple, no-brainer, common-sense thing voters were supposed to do all along, always.
that is all.

  • Stop Repeat Offenders.

  • Don’t Re-Elect Them !

Posted by: d.a.n at August 22, 2006 7:51 PM
Comment #177025

Oh, and here’s another good site: Project Vote Smart

Also, notice how close the two parties have been for the last decade. So, we have tried Democrats for a while, then Republicans, then Democrats again, … , then Republicans again.

Is that working?

The problem is the too many (if not all) incumbents in congress are irresponsible.

The bar is set so, so, so very low.

Voters need to do what they were always supposed to do. Simply do not re-elect irresponsible incumbent politicians. Get wise to the ways irresponsible incumbent politicians trick voters into re-electing them over and over.

You have choices.

Don’t believe the hype and brainwashing.
Don’t get seduced into the petty partisan warfare.

Simply do what voters were always supposed to do.
Who can argue with that honest, simple, responsible, non-partisan, peaceful, common-sense logic?

Posted by: d.a.n at August 22, 2006 8:09 PM
Comment #177029

Traveller just about nailed it.

Ron Paul is the only straight shooter left.
Too bad so many Americans want to vote for a winner rather than for trhe principle.

Posted by: Matt Goldseth at August 22, 2006 8:27 PM
Comment #177052

Joebag-

The only point I was making, and I don’t think I missed it, was that Rush is not representative of anything more than a niche market. Hell of an audience for what he does though…most radio jocks would sell a kidney to have his listener numbers. But that needs to be kept in context.

Posted by: Kevin23 at August 23, 2006 12:20 AM
Comment #177067

Rush’s audience is far more influential than most people imagine. His listeners were recently cited as the most educated of any radio program. I am guessing most are self-employed business owners or sale reps i.e. people who have time to listen. High achiever and high earners. Movers and shakers.

Posted by: nikkolai at August 23, 2006 8:25 AM
Comment #177092

Matt Goldseth,
What’s the amazing thing to me is that someone as honest and forthright as Ron Paul ever got elected in the first place. That says a lot for his constituents. Now it’s the Reps who are trying to get him out of Congress.
If McCain was the straight shooter the left likes to think he is, he would be facing the opposition from his party that Dr. Paul is.

Posted by: traveller at August 23, 2006 12:07 PM
Comment #177096

Nikkolai
If people who listen to (and support) Rush L are considered “intelligent”, “educated” and “movers and shakers” — then I am TRUELY Frightened for the educational system in this country — AND frightened for this country
Anyone with more than a 1/2 brain cell that buys the crap he sells for anything more than entertainment (somewhat perverse entertainment at that) is severly disturbed.
Hannity is another right-wing idiot that too many think is a “great american” (I guess the same type of people who bought into McCarthy in the 50’s)

Posted by: Russ at August 23, 2006 12:22 PM
Comment #177106

Nikkolai-

Thanks for making me snort laughing so hard. I just hope that was sarcasm, or it will go from funny to sad in no time at all.

Posted by: Kevin23 at August 23, 2006 1:16 PM
Comment #177107

Russ, I think nikkolai was blowing his own horn!

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 23, 2006 1:24 PM
Comment #177119

Actually, now that I view Nikkolai’s comment he said

Rush’s audience is far more influential than most people imagine.

and now that I think about it, that is not a very high bar to get over

Most people (I would hope) would not consider Rush influential at all (anymore) and therefore if he is influencing nikkolai then THAT alone is being more influential than most people imagine!!!!

Posted by: Russ at August 23, 2006 2:50 PM
Comment #177122

back to the point
I am one of those who is extremely disappointed in John McCain
Altho I did disagree with alot of his positions, I respected the fact that he was a straight talker, so that at least I would listen to what he had to say and ACTUALLY consider his position and any merits it might contain — and THAT is what is needed if we are to get out of this partisan BS mess.
However he has become such a suck-up lackey lap dog of the Bush whitehouse — I have just lost any and all respect for the man — especially after what Bush and Co did to him in the primaries, that he could even offer any support to that slimeball only indicates the depth that he has sunk, and the complete loss of any dignity he might have once owned.
I don’t know why or how Hillary got into this discussion — I would rather not see her run just because I believe it WILL energize the far right “never vote FOR a democrat — would rather elect a bumbling idiot (proven in 2000 and 2004) than ANY democrat” type of voter to come to the polls.

Posted by: Russ at August 23, 2006 2:58 PM
Comment #177123

Russ-

Upon careful review, I think you are right.

Although, I must say on behalf of “movers and shakers” everywhere who do not take 4 hour breaks during the peak business hours every day to listen Rush preach morality and economics (while he lives a personal life of giving into every temptation) that literally “moving” and “shaking” are not the only pre-requisites for being considered a “mover” or a “shaker”.

Posted by: Kevin23 at August 23, 2006 3:08 PM
Comment #177126

The American people are their own worst enemy.This goes for The left and the right.Its sad but our children will pay the price!

Posted by: offthehook at August 23, 2006 4:11 PM
Comment #177127

Hey Stephen,
To your post on Aug 21st. How can a nomination exist between Hillary and McCain when they are from different parties? You mentioned something about Hillary graduating from a lesbian school. I believe Cheaney has a daughter who is one. I don’t support their way of life, but we have many BIGGER issues going on with our country at this time. I was amazed at how well the Rebulicans were able to get Kerry off the subject of our REAL problems and bring up military sevice records. That approach would probably work on me as well if I served my country in Viet Nam and then was slandered by people like Rumsfeld who would not know a DD 214 if it jumped up and bit him on the ass and he is our Secretary of Defense. That would be like FDR choosing John Wayne during WWII. This is my first post and will be my last. The American public has been brainwashed. History always repeats, Hitler 1933 and Viet Nam. Democracy must be preserved, along with our Bill of Rights and Constitution. We have fought to preserve this idea since the birth of our nation and must continue the fight. Without these ideas we are no more than a 3rd world dictatorship. A great man once said, “ask not what your country can do for you, but what can you do for your country.” We need not stray from the ideas which made our country the greatest the world has ever seen.

Posted by: Brian at August 23, 2006 4:15 PM
Comment #177137

Rush and Hannity fuel the partisan warfare, and politicians love it. That’s their livelihood. Lots (maybe most) of voters are seduced by the petty partisan warfare. Politicians have used other things (other detractors, such as race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc.), but partisan warfare is their best invention, because many voters don’t see how they are lured into it, and controlled by it, and it does not violate anyone’s rights. Whatever the detractor is, the goal is to create a circular pattern of thought and behavior to divide the voters, to distract them from more substantive issues being neglected by irresponsible politicians, to prevent the voters from ever realizing that voters are being manipulated, to keep voters from ever forming a majority to oust the politicians, and making their cushy, coveted seats more secure.

Posted by: d.a.n at August 23, 2006 5:47 PM
Comment #177141

It was interesting watching McCain today (23-Aug-2006) trying to now distance himself from Bush and the war in Iraq, and pretending that he (himself; i.e. McCain) knew all along how difficult it was going to be in Iraq (from the beginning). Why? Oh, yeah. C.Y.A. This may be his last chance to run for president.

Posted by: d.a.n at August 23, 2006 5:52 PM
Comment #177142

“[P]eople like Rumsfeld who would not know a DD 214 if it jumped up and bit him on the ass and he is our Secretary of Defense”

Well, I don’t much like going to bat for Sec. Rumsfeld, but (from Wikipedia):

“He served in the U.S. Navy from 1954 to 1957 as an aviator and flight instructor, training in North American SNJ basic trainers and later flying Grumman F9F Panther fighters. In 1957, he transferred to the Ready Reserve and continued his Naval service in flying and administrative assignments as a drilling reservist until 1975. He transferred to the Standby Reserve when he became Secretary of Defense in 1975 and to the Retired Reserve with the rank of Navy Captain in 1989.”

Sec. Rumsfeld, to the best of my knowledge, is the only member of the Cabinet to have served on active duty.

Posted by: Arr-squared at August 23, 2006 6:00 PM
Comment #177144

“Sec. Rumsfeld, to the best of my knowledge, is the only member of the Cabinet to have served on active duty.”

And alas, the man is still loony tunes. Perhaps it’s a service-related disability.

Posted by: Tim Crow at August 23, 2006 6:25 PM
Comment #177147

McCain isn’t a straight talker, he’s nothing but a spinner and a two face. One of his faces is the maverick, while the other face is the appeaser and party loyalist.

A few examples:
1.) In 2000, McCain denounced Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson as the religious right’s “peddlers of intolerance” after the South Carolina primary, because they’d smeared him so badly. In fact, maybe some of you remember that McCain even condemned Bush back then as being “a Pat Robertson Republican.”
Now, as we all know, he has met with Falwell and spoke at Fallwell’s Liberty University. He now claims: “I admire the religious right for the dedication and zeal they put into the political process” when he appears on Larry King. Oh, and now he also endorses “intelligent design” and thinks it should be taught in schools alongside evolution, and supports a state ban on gay marriage that denies government benefits to all unmarried couples.

Some straight talker, sure.

2.) In 2000 when the (anti-tax) Club for Growth began running ads against McCain, he suddenly and totally reversed all his former positions and began supporting a procedural repeal of the estate tax.

Ads seem to be the quickest way of making McCain sing the appeaser tune rather than the “maverick” tune.

3.) Bush and his Rove slime machine totally trashed McCain in 2000, but in 2004 he said: “Campaigning with George W. Bush was one of the proudest moments of my life.” He’ll go on TV and make comments that are critical of Bush’s handling of Iraq, yet we’re supposed to forget all about the fact that he strongly defended those Iraq policies on the stage of the Republican National Convention in 2004.

Why should anyone actually believe a word the man says when he’s so patently false?

Here are a few other facts about McCain: while he opposes hate crimes legislation, he supports school vouchers, the star wars defense shield (even though it doesn’t work), and privitized accounts for Social Security (even though everyone knows that won’t fix the problem).

As for Hillary, I see her as being not much different than McCain — like him, she isn’t authentic when it comes to her opinions, instead she’s always got her finger in the wind trying to be all things to all people. Oh, wait — except when it comes to supporting the war in Iraq, then she’s a lot like Joe Lieberman — she’s been all for it, for who knows what reason.

I can’t and won’t vote for her to be the president should she get the nomination.

Biden’s just all right, IMO. He’s obviously bright, and certainly has some good ideas. But he talks too damn much — and I don’t know why, but for some reason, he’s always struck me as the professional political type, too (just like McCain and Hillary) — you know, kinda greasy and sleazy beneath all that smiling affability.

As some of you may already know, I really like Sen. Russ Feingold.
He’s brilliant, unapologetically a social liberal while being fiscally conservative, unapologetically authentic and firm in his opinions, yet still able to reach across the aisle. I really hope he’ll run in 2008, because with his smarts, voting record, articulate public speaking ability, and obvious authenticity, I believe he could easily win, and do a great job for the whole country.
Just my opinion.

Posted by: Adrienne at August 23, 2006 6:55 PM
Comment #177149

Adrienne

I agree with you on Feingold, and will certainly support and vote for him in the 2008 primary(or caucus, which ever Michigan decides to hold). While it’s possible he could win the nominaton I really have my doubts. Is the Democratic Party ready for a Russ Feingold or is he perceived as too liberal? If nominated does he stand a chance agaisnt a moderate Republican(are the Repubs capable of nominating a moderate?) So many questions……

Posted by: mark at August 23, 2006 7:35 PM
Comment #177151

McCain should have won the nomination in 2000, but tragically it was the revitilization of this batshit crazy evangelical right wing of the party that barely swayed the primary. Really was a shame because it was all downhill from there as far as quality public discourse. I would have enjoyed a spirited election with good debate about real issues. But in the end, GWB proved that talking points, posturing, and soundbites win more “hearts and minds” at home than all the good ideas in the world.

But then came the new McCain, getting behind Bush and acting like some party suck-up who didn’t want to lose his chance to run next time. He seriously looks as if he is constantly biting his tongue when he is interviewed now days. I have been very underwhelmed by his legislation, but I’ll at least give him credit for actually authoring a few bills…something very few congressmen do anymore (hell, they don’t even read the crap they vote on most of the time). But he should have kept up on the campaign finance reform movement. He should have asked tough questions on Iraq. These two things alone (both of which you can just see that he really believes in deep down) could have won him the nomination in 2008. With the dems STILL running around with their fingers in the air (nice analogy Adrienne…I like it), he would have been a perfect alternative to Bush’s incompetence and idiocy with his background and moral high ground. But he became a suck-up instead.

I hope he doesn’t regret for the rest of his life the fact that he sold his soul…but seeing as how he really got nothing for it, I think he will be banging his head on the wall for quite some time.

Posted by: Kevin23 at August 23, 2006 8:00 PM
Comment #177156

mark:
“While it’s possible he could win the nominaton I really have my doubts. Is the Democratic Party ready for a Russ Feingold or is he perceived as too liberal?”

I don’t honestly know, mark. Like I said, he’s definitely a fiscal budget hawk (and good lord, does the country ever need one now!), so shouldn’t that appeal to many conservatives? He’s also not typically liberal in other ways. For instance, his stance on gun control is thoughful and wise — something that is very important to many voters.
While he has voted in favor of certain kinds of gun control legislation, on other issues he’s voted to expand rights. For instance, in 2002, he voted for allowing airline pilots to carry firearms in airline cockpits, and in 2004 he voted against reauthorizing the assault weapons ban, and has generally opposed proposals to ban handguns. But, he has also voted in favor of requiring a background check on gun purchases at gun shows, as well as having handguns be sold with trigger locks.

He clearly supports the Second Amendment, and believes that this means that our citizens have the right to own firearms — yet wants Americans to be sensible on this subject. In 2004, he said this in a speech on the Senate floor:

“I have never accepted the proposition that the gun debate is a black and white issue, a matter of ‘you’re with us, or you’re against us.’ Instead, I have followed what I believe is a moderate course, faithful to the Constitution and to the realities of modern society. I believe that the Second Amendment was not an afterthought, that it has meaning today and must be respected. I support the right to bear arms for lawful purposes — for hunting and sport and for self-protection. Millions of Americans own firearms legally and we should not take action that tells them that they are second-class citizens or that their constitutional rights are under attack. At the same time, there are actions we can and should take to protect public safety that do not infringe on constitutional rights.”

Smart, thoughtful man. One that doesn’t sound like an overwrought left-loony — well, not to this girl anyway. In fact, I agree completely with that entire statement.

Kevin, re: McCain
“I’ll at least give him credit for actually authoring a few bills…something very few congressmen do anymore (hell, they don’t even read the crap they vote on most of the time).”

Since I’m trumpeting Feingold here, I’d like to remind everyone that he’s the ONLY Senator who actually read Patriot Act I from start to finish before it was rushed to a vote — and was thus the only one who understood that it was unconstitutional. Rather than act as though it would be unpatriotic to vote against something with that particular title right after 9/11 (which is what the rest of the lazy/chickenshit Senators did), Feingold voted against what he knew was a direct attack on our Constitutional rights.
The guy obviously takes his responsibility to that document, and to all of us, very seriously — and like McCain, has been someone authoring legislation in the Senate. I for one, also thought it was brave of him to boldly call for censure of the president when he saw that Bush had been illegally and warrantlessly wiretapping Americans — despite the fact that most of his Democratic colleagues were too just too timid to stand up beside him.
After Bush, the Slacker Puppet who only acts on behalf of Neoocon Authoritarians who are Against The Constitution, I can’t help but think someone of honesty and integrity like Feingold would really appeal to a huge majority of our citizens.

[Sigh] Ah, but what do I know? Maybe I’m just hopelessly naive to believe that Americans can still discern what a real leader acts like.

Posted by: Adrienne at August 23, 2006 10:15 PM
Comment #177165

Thanks, ARR Squared for setting me straight on this one. Guess I learn something new everyday and can’t believe everything I read on the internet. I now had a little respect for him, but would feel a lot better if Powell had the position. I’ve always heard that when Powell was Secretary of State he didn’t get along with Rumsfeld. Have you ever heard of this? Take Care!

Posted by: Brian at August 24, 2006 12:42 AM
Comment #177195

Russ Feingold is one of the few I could support without making excuses to myself. I’m “iffy” on Biden; maybe it’s not fair, but I’ve never quite gotten over my annoyance with him over that plagiarism flap.

Posted by: Trent at August 24, 2006 8:55 AM
Comment #177197

Trent,
Same here (regarding Biden). And, it (plagiarism) didn’t happen only once.

Posted by: d.a.n at August 24, 2006 9:36 AM
Comment #177206

Brian,

I wouldn’t be at all suprised if Secs. Rumsfeld and Powell didn’t get along; I think they’re radically different in political philosophy. Powell was always a realist, Rumsfeld a neoconservative.

Posted by: Arr-squared at August 24, 2006 10:39 AM
Comment #177211

Russ Feingold is probably one of the very few congress persons that even comes close to resembling “responsible”. However, there are a few things that need explaining.

Russ Feingold is a far, far better choice than Hillary Clinton. Rather than say how low-life Hillary is, let’s just say that Russ Feingold is a much, much more honest and responsible person than Hillary Clinton. Neither is perfect, but there is a vast difference. Compare their voting records (see a sample of Hillary’s record posted above in this thread). Hillary is not only quite fond of pork-barrel, but there has been some very shady stuff goings-on.

Not Feingold. Russ Feingold does deserve some credit for being one of the very, very few congress persons that does not vote on a lot of pork-barrel.

Still, people should consider Senator Russ Feingold’s record closely too. It’s not perfect. Russ Feingold (D-WI):

  • Voted NO on banning more types of Congressional gifts. (Jul 1995)

  • said: “I supported the war in Iraq and the world is much safer. (Oct 2004)” (who really believes that?)

  • Voted NO on authorizing use of military force against Iraq. (Oct 2002) (is that a flip flop?)

  • Voted YES on establishing a Guest Worker program. (May 2006) (a.k.a. amnesty)

  • Voted YES on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security. (May 2006). (as if Social Security needs more problems)

  • Voted YES on giving Guest Workers a path to citizenship. (May 2006) (figures)

  • Voted NO on Social Security Lockbox & limiting national debt. (Apr 1999) , but also … (they want to keep plundering the surpluses; it’s a ponzi scheme)

  • Voted NO on allowing personal retirement accounts. (Apr 1998) (OK, but voting NO to shore up S.S. also)

  • Voted NO on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004) (I don’t understand this at all)

  • Voted NO on $40B in reduced federal overall spending. (Dec 2005)

  • Voted YES on $40 billion per year for limited Medicare prescription drug benefit. (Jun 2003) (more pandering; nothing like buying votes)

  • Voted NO on eliminating the ‘marriage penalty’. (Jul 2000) (that’s real pro-family, eh?)

  • said: “Move the US Embassy to Jerusalem.” (Nov 1995) (???)

  • Voted NO on across-the-board spending cut. (Oct 1999) (course not: congress does not want to be fiscally responsible

People should check out politicians’ voting records … they may be surprised by what they find … and if not, it further demonstrates how, so, so very low the bar is set.

At any rate, the Democratic party would be wise to take a more serious look at Russ Feingold than Hillary Clinton, or most any other politician.

Posted by: d.a.n at August 24, 2006 11:10 AM
Comment #177215

d.a.n.:
“said: “I supported the war in Iraq and the world is much safer. (Oct 2004)” (who really believes that?)”

Feingold didn’t say that d.a.n., the website you got your info from attributed the wrong quote to Feingold. This was the actual exchange during debate on the Senate floor on Oct. 9th 2004 between Feingold and Michels (R):
Feingold said:
“We are better off Saddam Hussein is gone, but we are not safer.”

Michels rebuttal: “I supported the war in Iraq, progress is being made and putting a democracy in place will make the Middle East and the world much safer. Osama bin Laden has his troops deployed in Iraq right now.”

“Voted NO on authorizing use of military force against Iraq. (Oct 2002) (is that a flip flop?)”

So you see, no that wasn’t a flip flop. Feingold had the guts to make the right vote — and now look at the mess our troops are in because other Senators didn’t.

Btw, I have to say that when you look at what people voted yes and no on, you often need much more information than many websites give — they tell you nothing about what else was attempting to be slipped into those pieces of legislation. Often when you look at everything that is involved, you can get a much clearer picture of why someone might have voted the way they did.

Posted by: Adrienne at August 24, 2006 11:43 AM
Comment #177238

Adrienne,

You are correct. Feingold did say: “We are better off Saddam Hussein is gone, but we are not safer.” There is a mistake on that website. I will inform them of that mistake.

Adrienne wrote: … [BILLs] tell you nothing about what else was attempting to be slipped into those pieces of legislation. Often when you look at everything that is involved, you can get a much clearer picture of why someone might have voted the way they did.

As long as politicians are sneaking stuff into BILLs, whatever is in the BILL can fairly be used FOR or AGAINST the politician that votes FOR or AGAINST the BILL. Otherwise, there is no accountability.

So, what about those other things (above)?
I’m not saying Feingold is the worst congress person. He may be one of the least irresponsible. But, how can those things (above) be explained? How are voters supposed to know why any congress person vote FOR or AGAINST a BILL? How are voters supposed to know what parts of the BILL the congress person supports or does not support?

So, there is not way to know what the myriad of potential (convenient) reasons are as to why any congress person votes FOR or AGAINST a BILL up to others.

Until there is ONE-PURPOSE-PER-BILL, voters should hold politicians accountable for ever way they vote, regardless of other things in the BILL. If politicians don’t like that, then they should pass a ONE-PURPOSE-PER-BILL amendment. Until then, everything in every BILL is fair game. Especially since most (if not all) are all guilty of slipping in earmarks and other pieces of legislation. Especially since politicians made it that way, and few (if any) will lift a finger to correct the abuse. To let incumbent politicians off-the-hook by merely saying there was something else in the BILL is eliminating any accountability or responsibility on their part.

Posted by: d.a.n at August 24, 2006 1:35 PM
Comment #177239

d.a.n.,
You’ll get no argument from me about the idea of having one purpose per bill. Makes perfect sense, and I see no reason why this couldn’t be done.
As for checking everything on that list, I’m sorry, I just don’t have the time to do that — to go back and try to figure out exactly why Feingold voted as he did on every one of those things. I just know that since I decided to start following the Congressional votes more carefully (less than a year), I’ve ultimately agreed with the way that Feingold has voted — despite the way that others might view that vote on it’s surface, and regardless of other peoples political views that may differ sharply from my own. So, I guess you could say that after reading a lot about him, and following what he says and does, I’ve come to trust Feingold’s judgement and his obvious abilities. I think he has proven himself to be smart, level-headed and responsible about his duties to his state, and to our country.
Indeed when I look at all of the current members of the Senate that may run for president, Feingold stands out as the only one actually worth voting for.
Strictly my own opinion — you needn’t necessarily agree with me! ;^)

Posted by: Adrienne at August 24, 2006 1:56 PM
Comment #177244
As for checking everything on that list, I’m sorry, I just don’t have the time to do that — to go back and try to figure out exactly why Feingold voted as he did on every one of those things.
Exactly. Neither do I. Currently, it’s nearly impossible to know why a politician voted for or against a BILL.

Feingold certainly appears to be one of the least irresponsible in congress, but my biggest complaint with Feingold is his position on illegal immigration (voting to give Social Security to illegal aliens, voting for a Guest Worker program (a.k.a. Amnesty; didn’t we learn anything from 1986)), and voting to keep spending Social Security surpluses (a ponzi-scheme), regardless of whatever the real reasons may have been for voting for or against those BILLs.

Posted by: d.a.n at August 24, 2006 2:19 PM
Comment #177246

Adrienne,
I sent an E-Mail to OnTheIssues.org, and they acknowledged the error …


Thank you; bad mistake. Oddly enough, another reader wrote in with the same quote yesterday! I will fix it ASAP.
Editor, OnTheIssues.org
________________
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 1:43 PM
To: submit@OnTheIssues.org
Your web site has an item that is wrong for Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI).
In the section: Russel Feingold on Homeland Security, it implies that Russ Feingold said:
“I supported the war in Iraq and the world is much safer. (Oct 2004)”
However, he didn’t, and if you click on the link, it
clarifies that what Russ Feingold actually said was:
“We are better off Saddam Hussein is gone, but we are not safer.”
:
P.S. I like your web-site, and just want to make sure it is as accurate as possible.

Posted by: d.a.n at August 24, 2006 2:32 PM
Comment #177258

Feingold Votes

Aliens would only be able to collect on Social Security if they paid into it. This would make for a healthier program.

The vote on making it criminal to harm a unborn fetus during a crime was a red herring to move a step closer to making abortion illegal(by bestowing rights on an unborn fetus).

Posted by: mark at August 24, 2006 4:57 PM
Comment #177432

Adrienne,
OnTheIssues.org corrected the line about Feingold to read: “We are better off Saddam Hussein is gone, but we are not safer (Oct 2004).”


Mark wrote:
Aliens would only be able to collect on Social Security if they paid into it. This would make for a healthier program.

Mark,

  • They are illegal aliens, and therefore do not have any right to any Social Security.

  • Only about half of illegal aliens pay any Social Security taxes.

  • How do you verify contributions since invalid Social Security numbers were used? Some are using rented Social Security numbers.

  • It is a slap in the face of U.S. citizens who have been paying into the system all their life to open the system up to illegal aliens too. Most illegal aliens are not highly educated or wealthy, and opening up Social Security will also pave the way for Medicaid, Medicare, and welfare. Those systems are already on the brink of bankruptcy, without burdening them further. Importing massive numbers of uneducated and impoverished is not helping the economy. It is only helping the greedy employers who exploit cheap labor; and under-paid under-class.

  • Illegal aliens may contribute about $6 billion per year to Social Security, but cost U.S. tax payers a net loss of over $70 billion per year (that is after deducting all income and social security taxes paid)

Mark wrote: The vote on making it criminal to harm a unborn fetus during a crime was a red herring to move a step closer to making abortion illegal(by bestowing rights on an unborn fetus).

No motive justifies letting a criminal get away with harm to a fetus merely for fear of how it may affect abortion laws. But that is exactly what Feingold did by voting NO on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime (Mar 2004). Abortion is a separate issue. To vote NO and block legislation for fear of future rulings on other laws is an overall perversion of the law. Is the mother whose unborn fetus was lost due to a criminal attack she survived supposed to overlook the crime upon her fetus that died? Absurd. Pro-choice is one thing, but being so afraid that it will be over-turned as to make other stupid laws is not justified.

Posted by: d.a.n at August 25, 2006 3:58 PM
Comment #177475

Adrienne-

Did you see Hardball today? I took a late lunch, came home and turned on in time for Steve Laffey to be interviewed. Now THIS guy is legit. I liked him a lot. Matthews asked him some tough questions and he handles them like a champ.

http://www.electlaffey.com/site/about.php

Posted by: Kevin23 at August 25, 2006 7:25 PM
Comment #177533

Kevin, no I didn’t see it today. If it was a good interview, maybe I’ll be able to catch it online later? Laffey is up against Chaffee in Rhode Island, right? I don’t know too much about him, but I do remember reading somewhere that Chafee and the GOP has been playing pretty low down and dirty with their ads against Laffey lately.

Posted by: Adrienne at August 26, 2006 12:59 AM
Comment #177534

Thanks for seeing things set straight on that website, d.a.n.!
Feingold is no flip flopper, but mistakes like that are what give bogus amunition to the opposition when they’re intent on smearing someone.

Posted by: Adrienne at August 26, 2006 1:02 AM
Comment #177615

“Feingold is no flip flopper, but mistakes like that are what give bogus amunition to the opposition when they’re intent on smearing someone”

Usually, when smearing someone, the smearer doesn’t let the facts get in the way. Or they wouldn’t call it ‘smearing.’ They usually bring their own ammo, too, usually of questionable parentage.

Posted by: Tim Crow at August 26, 2006 2:15 PM
Post a comment