Democrats & Liberals Archives

Workin' that Maverick Magic

Democratic Vice Presidential Candidate Joe Biden said to a campaign crowd gathered in The Sun Dome at The University of South Florida, “You can’t call yourself a maverick when all you’ve ever been is a sidekick.”

Joe Biden was speaking of Republican Presidential Candidate John McCain during the event which took place in early October. Biden delivered the cutting one-liner then, as he has during campaign stops thereafter.

His words serve to quote Democratic Senator Bob Casey, plucked from the rather animated speech Casey gave at the Democratic National Convention in August. The statement was Casey's way of criticizing John McCain by illustrating a picture of McCain as virtually a replica of President George W. Bush in regard to policy agreement.

Even before Barack Obama won the Democratic nomination, his campaign informed the public that as senator, John McCain voted in favor of President George Bush's policies and initiatives, 90% of the time. The Obama campaign hung its hat on that fact and has not left home since.

Meanwhile, on the other side of town, John McCain insists that he is a maverick- a man of principled self-dependence, who occasionally votes against his party's proposed bills and resolutions.

As such, McCain's campaign, likewise, made its claim to the public that Barack Obama has practically never voted against his party's legislation, thus has practically never "reached across the isle" to his Republican colleagues to aid in moving the legislative process along, ultimately presenting another reason the McCain campaign cites for why Barack Obama is not ready to lead.

Senator McCain, along with his campaign, has made certain to remind us that John McCain has "reached across the isle," which according to McCain, solidifies why he is the "maverick" that he claims to be.

Such personal conviction, when presented with integrity, equals much to respect if not honor. Such would be the case now, regarding the living legacy of Senator John McCain. That is, had recent shape shifting within the campaign, in the name of maverickness, not begun to repeatedly play over again- like a WMA file set to loop.

If only mirrors routinely appeared before stone casters at the most appropriate of times, if only. And if so, what reflections would they cast?

How does the irony go unnoticed? Isn't it obvious that McCain's claim that Obama is not ready to lead, due to seldom reaching "across the isle," is equal to McCain voting for President Bush's policies- 90% of the time? Based on John McCain's logic, his own readiness to be president should come under question.

When Joe Biden quoted Casey, was he only referring to John McCain being President George W. Bush's sidekick? Considering the many interesting events swirling around the McCain campaign throughout the past several weeks, Biden's reference could have as well described Senator McCain's silhouette appearing within the shadow of Governor Sarah Palin.

McCain's maverick flag flew at full staff when he chose Governor Sarah Palin for the possible position of Republican Vice President. Since then we have witnessed more maverick moments than one could shake a stick at. In fact, it begs the question: how much is just too much maverick magic?

Speaking of enchantment, Sarah Palin recently spoke of the usefulness of having a magic wand. She claimed that if she had one, the McCain campaign would be talking to Americans about its plans for the nation instead of inundating voters with negative robocalls and tv ads. However, in an act of perplexing whiplash, it was Palin's pre-recorded voice, (on behalf of the McCain campaign), that chimed in over telephone receivers in some key battleground states- merely one day after wishing to magically poof those meddlesome McCain robocalls into oblivion.

John McCain promoted Governor Sarah Palin as being a reformer and fellow maverick who cut pork and uncovered government corruption in Alaska. Yet Sarah Palin spent a reported $50,000 to renovate her Alaskan office after she was newly elected Mayor of Wasilla, Alaska in 1996.

When confronted during her mayoral tenure about the lavish office decorating by Nick Carney, a former Wasilla City Council Member, Palin's response was, "I'm the mayor, I can do whatever I want until the courts tell me I can't."

Palin's retort came after Carney informed her, or worse, reminded Palin of why a 50k face lift for her office was not entirely Kosher. Salon.com quoted Carney, "I told her it was against the law to make such a large expenditure without the council taking a vote."

Sarah Palin further illustrated the self-appointed discretion that somehow renders her free to operate as she chooses during the vice presidential debate.

While defending John McCain's positions on taxes against Joe Biden, Sarah Palin declared, "I may not answer the questions the way that either the moderator or you want to hear, but I'm going to talk straight to the American people and let them know my track record also."

Later during the debate, moderator Gwen Ifill asked Palin to clarify what she meant when she said in an interview from July of this year, that someone would have to explain to her exactly what the daily duties of the vice president are. Palin wrote a pair of blank, authoritative checks to herself within the response. Can you spot them?

Palin's response:

"No, no. Of course, we know what a vice president does. And that's not only to preside over the Senate and will take that position very seriously also. I'm thankful the Constitution would allow a bit more authority given to the vice president if that vice president so chose to exert it in working with the Senate and making sure that we are supportive of the president's policies and making sure too that our president understands what our strengths are. John McCain and I have had good conversations about where I would lead with his agenda. That is energy independence in America and reform of government over all, and then working with families of children with special needs. That's near and dear to my heart also. In those arenas, John McCain has already tapped me and said, "'that's where I want you, I want you to lead.'" I said, I can't wait to get and there go to work with you."

When further asked if Sarah Palin believed, "...as Vice President Cheney does, that the Executive Branch does not hold complete sway over the office of the vice presidency, that it is also a member of the Legislative Branch," Palin agreed.

She added, "Well, our founding fathers were very wise there in allowing through the Constitution much flexibility there in the office of the vice president. And we will do what is best for the American people in tapping into that position and ushering in an agenda that is supportive and cooperative with the president's agenda in that position. Yeah, so I do agree with him that we have a lot of flexibility in there, and we'll do what we have to do to administer very appropriately the plans that are needed for this nation. And it is my executive experience that is partly to be attributed to my pick as V.P. with McCain, not only as a governor, but earlier on as a mayor, as an oil and gas regulator, as a business owner. It is those years of experience on an executive level that will be put to good use in the White House also."

So according to Sarah Palin, within the Constitution, lies the granting of authority to the vice president, ranging from "a bit more," to, "much flexibility?" In addition to that, as vice president, Sarah Palin will be appointed the power to, "reform government over all," by John McCain? Such a vague statement implies completely unknown possibilities.

Meanwhile, according to Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution:

The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.

Sarah Palin was found to have abused her power in the now infamous Troopergate case. Although according to law, as Governor, Sarah Palin reserved the right to terminate Walt Monegan's position, (State Public Safety Commissioner), at will. However, according to The Supreme Court of Alaska, it was determined that Palin abused her power by pressuring Walt Monegan to fire her former brother-in-law from his position with the Alaska State Troopers.

In an act of complete denial, Palin insisted to reporters that she had done nothing wrong. Stating, "If you read the report, you will see that there was nothing unlawful or unethical about replacing a cabinet member. You got to read the report."

Well, those reporters did read the report. They read about the right Sarah Palin, as Governor, possessed that allowed her to terminate employment at will. However, they also read the other part of the ruling that stated Palin was responsible for abusing her authority.

An argument could be made that Palin was only adhering to the script the McCain campaign wrote when it declared that Palin was cleared from any wrongdoing before the Supreme Court rendered its ruling.

Reports of infighting within the McCain campaign have surfaced in recent days. Sources at CNN and Politico have been told by McCain advisors, things such as:

"She's lost confidence in most of the people on the plane." The McCain source further explained that she was "going rogue" during some campaign stops.

"She is a diva. She takes no advice from anyone. She does not have any relationships of trust with any of us, her family or anyone else."

"She is playing for her own future and sees herself as the next leader of the party. Remember: Divas trust only unto themselves, as they see themselves as the beginning and end of all wisdom."

Most notably, was a remark from a McCain advisor to Mike Allen of Politico that Sarah Palin was a "wack job."

Nice. Talk about loyalty and camaraderie. With friends like those, who needs enemies...right?

Enter stage left: Sam Wurzelbacher, also known as Joe the Plumber- John McCain's "everyday-man" symbol for his economic vision for America. John McCain feels that three is certainly fine company for the campaign. This must be the reason why he has invited America's plumber to campaign with him, in essence elevating "Joe's" status to Honorary First Plumber.

Wurzelbacher did not pass the opportunity to walk the maverick strut, solidifying the appropriateness of his involvement with the McCain campaign. During a McCain rally on October 28, Wurzelbacher agreed with a supporter who told him that a vote for Obama would be a vote for "the death to Israel."

In response, the McCain campaign issued this statement:

"While he's clearly his own man, so far Joe has offered some penetrating and clear analysis that cuts to the core of many of the concerns that people have with Barack Obama's statements and policies."

"Penetrating and clear analysis," even though when speaking with Fox News' Shepard Smith, Wurzelbacher could not formulate a solid argument to substantiate why an Obama presidency would equal "death to Israel?"

Wurzelbacher further exemplified being his "own man" when he failed to appear at a McCain rally in the ironically named Ohio town of Defiance, on October 30. John McCain called out to "Joe," his new mascot, only to be greeted with absence- quite the awkward moment. However, "Joe" is "his own man." Perhaps even to McCain, Wurzelbacher possesses the makeup of a maverick. In such case, "Joe" has credence to do as he pleases.

It is my analysis that the workings of the McCain campaign are much like the function of a freight train. Instead of transporting cargo, each individual car delivers its own piece of feel-good "straight talk." The trouble is, just as how freight is separated by individual cars on a train, the various pieces of content that the Straight Talk Express wants us to accept, fails to correlate. Frankly, the McCain campaign has broken down into a disheveled mess, lying on an un-swept circus floor.

With John McCain, Sarah Palin, and now, the honorary First Plumber operating separate of each other, and advisors from the McCain campaign actually going on the attack against Sarah Palin before the election has even taken place- what evidence will support the prospect of an amiable president/vice president relationship should McCain and Palin be elected to office?

Why would it be a good idea for two self-professed mavericks to serve as president and vice president, having been elected to office, possibly clinching festered resentment of each other, and baggage, on top of toting opposing political philosophies?

If John McCain and Sarah Palin desire to serve as our president and vice president, they should set out to lead by example. In other words, if our leaders push the limits of law to benefit themselves, completely deny wrongdoing (regardless of a court's findings), and shape shift on campaign policy and message, in an effort to fulfill a current political agenda- how could they reasonably expect the citizens of this country to abide by the laws and rules that most any other elected officials would at least pretend to honor?

John McCain and Sarah Palin have granted themselves the privilege to freely chameleon under the guise of being mavericks. Are we being offered "do as I say, not as I do," leadership? If the people elect John McCain and Sarah Palin, will we be offering the pair a blank check to govern as they please?

Do we not foresee the possible disastrous effects of being led by an administration headed by "mavericks," who, based on past behavior, could very likely choose to govern according to personal discretion, opposed to policy and law? Has the current financial crises not taught us what the resulting cocktail can be when power and assumed privilege are blended together?

Sources

Biden quoting Bob Casey
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27085394/

Casey convention speech
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12861.html

Obama on McCain and GW Bush policy agreement
http://www.barackobama.com/speeches/index.php

McCain reaches across isle
http://www.johnmccain.com/Undecided/WhyMcCain.html

Palin criticizes McCain robocalls
http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2008/10/palin_criticize.html

Palin records robocall
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/10/new_mccain_robocall_stars_sara.php

Palin office spree
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/09/17/palin_mayor/

VP debate
http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/president/debates/transcripts/vice-presidential-debate.html

Constitution
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article01/

Troopergate
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/11/palin.investigation/

McCain campaign clears Palin of wrongdoing in Troopergate
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/09/mccain-camp-clears-palin_n_133456.html

McCain advisors smear Palin
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5igWA77jTUWXP5cqP7Xy1MDq8I1ZQ

McCain advisors smear Palin
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/15073.html

Shepard Smith Joe the Plumber interview
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/28/foxs-shepard-smith-forced_n_138674.html

McCain campaign on Joe the Plumber comment
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1032257.html

Posted by Tiffani Martin at October 31, 2008 8:00 AM
Comments
Comment #268948

I apologize to all for submitting my article so soon after john trevisani submitted his. I spent several minutes editing before submitting and did not think to check for new submissions before finalizing my post.

Posted by: Tiffani Martin at October 31, 2008 8:31 AM
Comment #268956

Impressive. Thanks for the post.

TM: Do we not foresee the possible disastrous effects of being led by an administration headed by “mavericks,” who, based on past behavior, could very likely choose to govern according to personal discretion, opposed to policy and law?

I think most voters do, except the proudly ignorant. I think most sentient, conscious voters have to look no further than the current Oval office resident to anticipate the abhorrent effect of ideological governing.

TM: Has the current financial crises not taught us what the resulting cocktail can be when power and assumed privilege are blended together?

Again, most voters do. Incredibly, some voters (including some posters on watchblog) think what we need is not just more of the same neglect and ideology, but more extreme neglect and ideology.

Astoundingly, some think the current financial crisi might have been avoided had there been even fewer regulations and even less enforcement of the few regulations with which they agree.

I simply do not know how you persuade people who can clearly see the disaster resulting from 8 years of laissez faire, yet call for even less regulation.

It’s like the pop definition of insanity: expecting different results from the same actions.

Posted by: EJN at October 31, 2008 9:13 AM
Comment #268959

TM: how much is just too much maverick magic?

Palin is even less “maverick” than McCain; she’s nothing if not a ideologically pure, Republican hack.

I’m listening to her talk in Latrobe, PA right now. What did she just say? “Government is not the solution, government is the problem.” - pure ideological bullcrep.

Sure, you can quote some minor instances of Palin going against the party but only when it was in the best interest of her powerful ambition, never when her motive was purely in the best interest of the constituency.

Don’t get me wrong: I hope the Republicans run her again and again in future elections because probably 70% of this country is sick and tired of the kind of politics she represents. Her kind of ideological purity might play well in the largely rural, largely secessionist Alaska, but it sounds like nails scraping on a blackboard in much of the other 49 states.

If McCain really wanted to run with a maverick, he would have picked Lieberman and probably would have won in a landslide. Lieberman is more of a maverick, and by the way less of an ideologue, than just about anyone else in the legislative branch.

I might even have broken down and voted for McCain/Lieberman, and believe me, that’s saying something.

But Palin’s no maverick.

Posted by: EJN at October 31, 2008 9:37 AM
Comment #268964

I find this article by Tiffany Martin very interesting. Tiffany Martin wrote a post entitled, “Barack Obama: Elitism or the Condemnation of Intellect?” There were 115 posts on that article and not one time did Tiffany answer any questions after her initial post. In analysis of this post, Tiffany makes the same left talking points as has been brought up ever since McCain won the nomination: McCain and Bush are the same, attacking McCain’s history of reaching across the isle, attacking Sarah Palin’s record in Alaska, attacking “Joe the Plumber”, and last of all talking about the confusion and disagreement between Palin and McCain campaigners. Now I wouldn’t have thought anything about this except for what I read yesterday from hillbuzz (P.U.M.A.’s):

“Posted on Tuesday, October 28, 2008 2:21:45 AM by TJC
# sarah p Says: October 27, 2008 at 5:04 am
Ok, I want to clear my conscious a little. Hopefully you could make a blog post to help some fellow clinton supporters out.
I work for a campaign and can’t wait for this week to be over.
I was doing it for a job. I was not a fan of any candidate but over time grew to love HRC.
The internal campaign idea is to twist, distort, humiliate and finally dispirit you.
We pay people and organize people to go to all the online sites and “play the part of a clinton or mccain supporter who just switched our support for obama”
We do this to stifle your motivation and to destroy your confidence.
We did this the whole primary and it worked.
Sprinkle in mass vote confusion and it becomes bewildering. Most people lose patience and just give up on their support of a candidate and decide to just block out tv, news, websites, etc.
This surprisingly has had a huge suppressing movement and vote turnout issues.
Next, we infiltrate all the blogs and all the youtube videos and overwhelm the voting, the comments, etc. All to continue this appearance of overwhelming world support.
People makes posts to the effect that the world has “gone mad”
Thats the intention. To make you feel stressed and crazy and feel like the world is ending.
We have also had quite a hand in skewing many many polls, some we couldn’t control as much as we would have liked. But many we have spoiled over. Just enough to make real clear politics look scarey to a mccain supporter. Its worked, alough the goal was to appear 13-15 points ahead.
see, the results have been working. People tend to support a winner, go with the flow, become “sheeple”
The polls are roughly 3-5 points in favor of Barack. Thats due to our inflation of the polls and pulling in the sheeple.
Our donors, are the same people who finance the MSM. Their interests are tied, Barack then tends to come across as teflon. Nothing sticks. And trust, there were meetings with Fox news. The goal was to blunt them as much as possible. Watch Bill Oreilly he has become much more diplomatic and “fair and balanced” and soft. Its because he wants to retain the #1 spot on cable news and to do that he has to have access to the Obama campaign and we worked hard at stringing him a long and keeping him soft for an interview swap. It worked and now he is anticipating more access. So he is playing it still soft.
This is why nothing sticks.
The operation is massive, the goal is to paint a picture that is that of a winner, regardless of the results.
There is no true inauguration draft or true grant park construction going on. There will be a party, but we are boasting beyond the truth to make it seem like the election is wrapped up.
Our goal is to continue to make you lose your moral. We worked hard at persuasion and paying off and timing and playing the right political numbers to get key republican endorsements to make it seem even more like it was over and the world was coming to an end for you all.
There is a huge staff of people working around the clock, watching every site, blogs, etc. We flood these sites. We have had a goal to overwhelm.
The truth is here. I could go on and on, but you get the picture.
I am saying this because I know HRC was better for the country, and now realize this. I was too late by the time I connected to her. To me Barack was just a cool young dude that seemed like a star. I didn’t know him or his policies, but now I understand more than I care to and I realize his interests are more for him, and the DNC and all working like puppets with dean. I always thought a president wanted the better good for the country. The end result I see is everyone dependent on the government, this means more and more people voting for the DNC. This means the future is forever altered. I don’t see this as america, so I am now supporting John Mccain.
Sarah Palin is a huge threat, and our campaign has feared her like you can’t imagine. If it seems unfair how she has been treated, well its because she has had a team working round the clock to make her look like a fool.
this is a big conspiracy and I am so shocked that its not realized.
We released a little blurb the other day that the Obama campaign was already working on reelection and now putting our efforts towards 2012. This was to make it seem like it was above us to continue caring about 2008. Trust me, its a lie. David is very smart, but its a sticky ugly not very truthful kind of intelligence.
Its not over yet, but I think the machine is working. And its a hill to climb.
I will be quitting my post on nov 5th and my vote will be for John Mccain. Fortunately, my position has been a marketing position and I don’t feel I had any part of anything I would feel guilty for. But I look forward to getting out of this as the negativity and environment upsets me.
I wish you all well, and goodluck.
PS my name is not really sarah. but I am a female and I understand your plight.”

I want to make it CLEAR that I am not attacking Tiffany. I am questioning. Most of us on watchblog are common everyday people, who come together and discuss politics among other things. We are not professional reporters, at least I’m not, some are educated, some are not, and some want to sound like they are.
My question, concerning Tiffany, has she infiltrated our site with an agenda. I googled her posts and this is what I found:
http://myrealitytelevision.com/2008/10/opinion-abc-charlie_gibson-obama-interview-10-8/
By: Tiffani Martin, Guest Writer
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1166186/workin_that_maverick_magic.html?cat=75

By Tiffani Martin, published Oct 31, 2008

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1096051/integrity_watch_hey_mccainsay_it_to.html?cat=9

By Tiffani Martin, published Oct 13, 2008

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1103684/barack_obama_elitism_or_the_condemnation.html?cat=9

By Tiffani Martin, published Oct 16, 2008

I guess we will know for sure if we continue to see her posts after the election.

Posted by: Oldguy at October 31, 2008 10:22 AM
Comment #268966

while they are trying so hard to place labels on everyone. i have one to assign the repub vp choice.

sarah the liar.

Posted by: bluebuss at October 31, 2008 11:08 AM
Comment #268967

Oldguy:

In order to be an editor here at watchblog you have to show your work, either your own blog or posts you have made elsewhere. That is my understanding at least.

Posted by: womanmarine at October 31, 2008 11:36 AM
Comment #268969

also oldguy — your own work is not coping and pasting a post that’s all over the web with no know author as a true fact [ 700+ hits on a google search]
— savage

Posted by: A Savage at October 31, 2008 11:56 AM
Comment #268970

Regarding the substantial inquiry…

Oldguy, my legal name is Tiffani-(with an I) Martin.

I enjoy reading, analyzing, and typing those thoughts out. I decided to seek out forums where I could do just that and be heard. As a result, I stumbled upon some sites that I could submit articles to- Watch Blog being one of them.

It was explained by the staff of this site, upon my acceptance as a contributor, that if I chose not to participate in debate, I could opt out.

This is from a message I received from David Remer of Watchblog upon being accepted:

“Some writers with thinner skins avoid responding to any comments to their editorials. Others love to engage in debate and have no problem keeping the debate above the personal level or drop the debate if another person becomes personal. The choice is yours.”,

I greatly appreciate all of the positive feedback and hearty discussion between others on my previous post. However, I have spent many a day in the past, involved in heated, heated debate, and useless cyber fights.

My skin is anything but thin, but I no longer have the time or patience for the BS, so I decided to better my chances of that not happening by not responding to anything.

Also included in that message was this:

“The owner or Managing Editor will exercise their authority to remove writer’s access to WatchBlog for failure to observe the credo: Critique the message, not the messenger.”

Somehow I believe this is precisely what you are doing to me right now…

To further address a few of your concerns:

I will have to admit feeling a bit flattered that you liken me to a professional writer/reporter- which is exactly what I want to be. Believe it or not, I am only a massage therapist/musician who has always been pretty creative, with a great love for playing with words.

There is nothing professional here. Although, I have decided to return to school to major in Political Science.

What you call “my agenda” is really “my voice.”

I am one of those aspiring Americans that John McCain talks about. However, instead of owning a business, I want to do it through schooling and experience. Submitting articles online provides examples of my work and experience. What is wrong with that?

In the name of safety: If you continue to research me and you uncover personal information, (such as my address for example), could you please refrain from listing it here like the evidence of my “professionalism” that you’ve pasted in your post?

Could you also please refrain from visiting or calling me, should you uncover that aforementioned personal info? That would be much appreciated.

From one stranger to another,

Tiffani

Posted by: Tiffani Martin at October 31, 2008 12:12 PM
Comment #268977

Opinion of a senior french blogger here

Posted by: Nicolas at October 31, 2008 1:57 PM
Comment #268981

Remaining strangers is GOOD…I certainly don’t want to get too close to Oldguy either.

Good post Tiffani, and timely too…

Posted by: Marysdude at October 31, 2008 2:03 PM
Comment #268983

Tiffani writes to Oldguy; “Could you also please refrain from visiting or calling me, should you uncover that aforementioned personal info? That would be much appreciated.”

Tiffani, that sounds like a paranoid statement to me. Reading between your lines one could almost suspect that you believe Oldguy might be some kind of stalker. If I were him, I would be offended by your implications.

Posted by: Jim M at October 31, 2008 2:31 PM
Comment #268984

Jim — do a little research on internet stalking please. its a real thing and often starts in a forums and or chats,so any lady that’s not a bit paranoid is very foolish and should not be online.
— Savage

Posted by: A Savage at October 31, 2008 2:57 PM
Comment #268986

Jim M
She may very well have good reason to be cautious
anytime anyone puts something on the web it leaves one open to a ton of unwanted advances.

Tiffani
Good post, the problem is that most of the McCain supporters I have come across too readily believe all the BS and dismiss the facts.
And in fact there are studies that show conservatives especially are prone to this condition.
They (like most of us) are prone to accept info that bolsters our pre-conceived ideas — but where the conservatives tended to differ was, when presented with misinformation AND the Facts (and each were identified as such) they tended to believe even more strongly in the misinformation (don’t bother me with the facts dagnabit!!)
The right side is a lost cause, the only hope are the true independents who are so tired of the McCain camp crying wolf that they just automatically discredit anything coming from that side.
(Most of their BS lies have been discredited anyway, and it has lead (in my opinion) to an unprecedented effort by the main news reporting outlets to engage in “factchecking” and reporting on these lies and misinformation (it is funny tho, that in an attempt to be “balanced” whenever they look at the Obama campaigns claims against McCain, there is a bit of exaggeration but none of the outright lies — and even then the outlets have to stretch pretty far to even make a finding of “misleading” — but — ya gotta be fair huh?

Posted by: Russ at October 31, 2008 3:02 PM
Comment #268988

Jim M:

You are right, I do feel somewhat offended.

Tiffan(i):

As I stated, “I want to make it CLEAR that I am not attacking Tiffani. I am questioning.” I know the rules of Watchblog: I have been responding on this site for several years. I was not critiquing the messenger, simply asking questions. Normally, a writer will answer any questions and defend their article.

“What you call “my agenda” is really “my voice.”

I hate to be the one to break this to you, but everyone on this site has an agenda. I don’t think the BHO campaign is above infiltrating blog sites in order to accomplish an agenda. Do you?

“In the name of safety: If you continue to research me and you uncover personal information, (such as my address for example), could you please refrain from listing it here like the evidence of my “professionalism” that you’ve pasted in your post?

Could you also please refrain from visiting or calling me, should you uncover that aforementioned personal info? That would be much appreciated.

I simply googled your articles and as you said, “Submitting articles online provides examples of my work and experience. What is wrong with that?” Nothing wrong with it, in fact I am assuming you submit your articles to be read. So I have given you free advertisement. It is common to include links to investigative information. Now, concerning your address and phone number; I have no desire to access your address or phone number. BHO’s campaign has handled anyone who has questioned his motives by personal attacks. I am not a stalker, I was simply asking questions.

Thank you for your response,
Remaining strangers forever,
Oldguy

Posted by: Oldguy at October 31, 2008 3:41 PM
Comment #268993

Okay, oldguy, let me see if I have this right. Someone posts on a clearly anti-Obama blog that she’s a disenchanted campaign worker for Obama whose job is to go onto blogs and pretend to be something she isn’t…and we’re supposed to take that at face value?

Do you SERIOUSLY believe that the Republicans — whose 2004 campaign tactics created new terms for dirty, underhanded politics (e.g., Swiftboating) — are above these kind of tactics, but Obama isn’t? What might be equally unbelievable is the suggestion that the Hillary Clinton campaign wouldn’t sink as low as Obama.

Yes, we all have our agendas here. But there’s a difference between having an agenda and being so blinded by your ideology (specifically in this election, both for and against Obama…and for that matter, Palin) that every statement you make or stand you take is devoid of all reason and perspective.

One other thing…I’ve been to the Hillbuzz site and it is the only one I’ve found…including freerepublic.com, dailykos, national review, and so on…that is absent all dissenting views in its comment sections. It is IMPOSSIBLE to believe that there isn’t at least one Hillary Democrat who would chime in to plead for these so-called Democrats to vote with their party. This site also links to all the traditional sites you’d find on a typical Right Wing outlet. If anything is a sham and a front, it’s Hillbuzz. The only time I take these (One Party) voting for (The Other Party’s Candidate) sites seriously is when other sections are devoted to their traditional causes and non-presidential candidates. Hillbuzz is far from that.

By the way, I was a McCain voter in 2000, but he lost me this time around. I’m left to make some kind of protest vote (probably not Obama). But in my state it doesn’t matter anyway…we’re solid Blue.

Posted by: Sam McD at October 31, 2008 4:24 PM
Comment #268994

OG: I am not a stalker, I was simply asking questions.

So OldGuy, what exactly what your question?

My curiosity got the best of me and though I found a lot of apparently copied/pasted stuff, I found not a single question mark nor a single sentence that might have been construed as a question.

Seems to me like the right is growing more and more desparate by the day.

Posted by: EJN at October 31, 2008 4:26 PM
Comment #268995

oldguy said

“I find this article by Tiffany”

tiffani said

“Oldguy, my legal name is Tiffani-(with an I) Martin.”

oldguy… how dare you !

yep looks like thin skin to me. don’t worry though taffani with an i. my wife doesn’t allow me to stock strange women. LOL!!!!!!!

remember oldguy it’s ok for them to trash you, but how dare you question them. pretty much the MO as far as i can tell. if thier not trashing us thier giving each other cyber hi fives, so let me take the time to say GREAT POST OLD GUY !!!

Posted by: dbs at October 31, 2008 4:28 PM
Comment #268997

Well, so far everyone has pretty much written reams about Tiffani, and hardly a word about her post…good batting average. After all that blather, Oldguy, did you agree with Tiffani?

Posted by: Marysdude at October 31, 2008 4:44 PM
Comment #268998

dude


“Remaining strangers is GOOD…I certainly don’t want to get too close to Oldguy either.”

well this sure seems to have a lot to do with tiffanis post.

“Well, so far everyone has pretty much written reams about Tiffani, and hardly a word about her post…good batting average.”

and you’re as guilty as anyone here.

Posted by: dbs at October 31, 2008 4:58 PM
Comment #268999

WOW…I just heard the latest Obama gaffe on the radio that is sure to be repeated from now until Tuesday. It wasn’t bad enough that he told the Plummer that it was only fair to “Spread the Wealth Around”, now he says; “those against higher taxes are just selfish”. And, he got an applause from the brain-dumb audience. Obviously most of those in the audience were going to be on the receiving end rather than on the painful giving end.

He’ll still be trying to extract his foot from his mouth long after Mr. McCain is sworn in. And…this is the guy that liberals want sitting at a table with leaders of terrorist nations with no preconditions. Unbelievable. This guy has lost control of his mouth just like Biden who tells us that paying higher taxes is “patriotic”.

Yeah…I am selfish as I don’t want my taxes increased to send money to 40 million folks who already don’t pay any taxes.

Hello…are there any other “selfish folks” out there or is it just us conservatives?

Posted by: Jim M at October 31, 2008 5:26 PM
Comment #269001

Dad had a Analogy for that, I see again Your Arms are too short to reach your Pockets.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at October 31, 2008 5:42 PM
Comment #269003

EJN said:

“I found not a single question mark nor a single sentence that might have been construed as a question.”

I think this might have qualified as a question:

Oldguy said, “My question, concerning Tiffany, has she infiltrated our site with an agenda.”

It was a typo on the question mark.

dbs:

I noticed Tiffani’s thin skin, but I didn’t say anything. Thanks for catching it.

marysdude:

Actually dude, I had to go back and read it again. So much has been said, I forgot what it was about. Of course, I am old, and I have an excuse for forgetting. No, I didn’t agree with anything she said.

Jim M:

I have to confess, I am a “selfish conservative”.

Posted by: Oldguy at October 31, 2008 5:47 PM
Comment #269004

“In his 1938 essay “The Revolution Was,” Garet Garrett wrote:

“There are those who think they are holding the pass against a revolution that may be coming up the road. But they are gazing in the wrong direction. The revolution is behind them. It went by in the Night of the Depression, singing songs to freedom.”

Nevertheless, there is a difference not just of degree but of kind between unemployment compensation for jobless workers, welfare for destitute families, and confiscating the income of taxpayers who earned it — to hand out to chronic tax consumers who did not.

This last is the socialism Winston Churchill called “the philosophy of envy and gospel of greed.” And it is this suggestion of socialist ideology in Obama’s words that has produced the belated pause by a nation that seemed to be moving into his camp. What did Barack say in 2001?

He spoke of the inadequacy of the courts as institutions to bring about “redistributive change” in society, of the “tragedy” of the civil rights movement in losing sight of the “political and organizing activities on the ground that are able to bring about the coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change.”

Normal people don’t talk like that. Socialists do.

This is ideology speaking. This is the redistributionist drivel one hears from cosseted college radicals and the “Marxist professors” Obama says in his memoir he sought out at the university. It is the language of social parasites like William Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn and Father Pfleger.

Enforced egalitarianism entails the death of excellence. For it seizes the rewards that excellence earns and turns them over to politicians and bureaucrats for distribution to the mediocrities upon whose votes they depend. One need not be Ayn Rand to see that Barack has picked up from past associates utopian notions that have ever produced nightmare states.”

From an article by Patrick J. Buchanan

Posted by: Jim M at October 31, 2008 5:51 PM
Comment #269007

Jim M

Be careful about copying and pasting, I got in trouble for doing the same thing:)

Posted by: Oldguy at October 31, 2008 6:07 PM
Comment #269008


Obama’s Redistribution Plan a Taxing Fantasy

by Donald Lambro


— Job growth over 10 years is more than twice as high under McCain’s tax plan than Obama’s.

— Total employment grows an average of 915,800 jobs under Obama, and by 2.13 million under McCain.

— Economic growth, as measured by the country’s gross domestic product, would be “nearly three times higher than under Obama.”

— A typical family of four “would see an average of $5,138 more in disposable income under McCain plans compared with $3,631 more under Obama’s.”

“Because Sen. Obama relies largely on tax credits to achieve his redistribution, his plan does not find a large economic benefit from lower tax rates, nor a more efficient tax structure,” Beach wrote.

“This lower economic performance stems in large part from the modest decreases in marginal tax rates on taxpayers earning less than $250,000 and increases in those rates above that level,” he said.

Obama has sold his plan as something it is not: a plan that will grow the economy when, in fact, it would grow the government at the economy’s expense.

Notably, two other economists in Clinton’s administration wrote earlier this year that spending on infrastructure, as Obama proposes, is among the “less effective options” to combat looming recessions because the money usually trickles down into the economy when it is too late to do any good.

The authors of that study: Douglas W. Elmendorf, now an adviser to House Democrats, and Jason Furman, who is Obama’s chief economic adviser.”

Link; http://townhall.com/columnists/DonaldLambro/2008/10/31/obamas_redistribution_plan_a_taxing_fantasy?page=1

Posted by: Jim M at October 31, 2008 6:08 PM
Comment #269009

-Jim

…”Distribution to the mediocrities.” You mean like plumbers, firefighters, nurses, teachers, police officers, day care providers, and others who work make less than $200,000 a year?

Posted by: Tom at October 31, 2008 6:18 PM
Comment #269013

Can anybody tell me how much those 40 million citizens who don’t pay any taxes are going to get under the Obmam plan? I hear a lot about them…maybe I can borrow some money from one, if they get very much…

Posted by: Marysdude at October 31, 2008 6:34 PM
Comment #269014

tom

…”Distribution to the mediocrities.” You mean like plumbers, firefighters, nurses, teachers, police officers, day care providers, and others who work make less than $200,000 a year?”

no tom what i think he meant was those who actually pay no income tax. or those who vote for the guy who promises to punish those evil people who succeed, and redistribute the spoils to them in the form of freebees.

Posted by: dbs at October 31, 2008 6:36 PM
Comment #269015

Yeah, poor people get all the breaks.

Posted by: phx8 at October 31, 2008 6:57 PM
Comment #269016

-phx8

I would also hate to see any homeless veterans receive any freebies. God forbid!

Posted by: Tom at October 31, 2008 7:43 PM
Comment #269022

Marysdude asks; “Can anybody tell me how much those 40 million citizens who don’t pay any taxes are going to get under the Obmam plan? I hear a lot about them…maybe I can borrow some money from one, if they get very much…”

— A typical family of four “would see an average of $5,138 more in disposable income under McCain plans compared with $3,631 more under Obama’s.”

Marysdude…vote for Mr. McCain and you won’t have to bother your neighbors.

Posted by: Jim M at October 31, 2008 8:27 PM
Comment #269024

TM

This must be the reason why he has invited America’s plumber to campaign with him, in essence elevating “Joe’s” status to Honorary First Plumber.


First plumber, I love it! A well written run down of the political comedy that is the McCain campaign. I have often thought a great sitcom could be based around the ridiculous absurdity that seems to envelope McCains run.

In a more serious tone, there exists an American idol faction of the U.S. that thrives on controversy, cutsie moms, apple pie, and the percieved wisdom of a man who has nothing of substance to offer this country. For these folks this is nothing more than a popularity contest which will afford them bragging rights should they pick the winner. Those bragging rights carry more value for them than the resultant outcome of such careless action. It certainly is sad. But I can find no other reason why anyone with knowledge of the last eight years of rule would possible give a legitimate thought to the dog and pony show that the GOP has provided.

Posted by: RickIL at October 31, 2008 8:35 PM
Comment #269025

oldguy

My question, concerning Tiffany, has she infiltrated our site with an agenda.

I know Bush has been working hard to limit our freedoms. But last I knew we still had the right to speak and write our thoughts. Of course she has an agenda. Who the hell on this site doesn’t have an agenda? We all have an agenda of presenting viewpoints in hopes of convincing, learning or maybe just venting some pent up frustrations. You may not be attacking her, but you certainly are questioning her motives and the right to present them. I think she was quite clear in her motives. She is attempting to discern what could possibly seriously attract people to the political circus on the right. Imo a valid question of which she certainly is not the only one in wonderment.

Posted by: RickIL at October 31, 2008 8:46 PM
Comment #269029

Jim wrote:

“Tiffani, that sounds like a paranoid statement to me. Reading between your lines one could almost suspect that you believe Oldguy might be some kind of stalker. If I were him, I would be offended by your implications.”

~ You call it paranoia, I call it realism. I have very strong opinions which in the past inspired someone to take an abnormal interest in finding out everything they could about me. So, if you feel that I’m being too cautious for my own good, sue me…

——————————————

Old Guy wrote:

“I hate to be the one to break this to you, but everyone on this site has an agenda. I don’t think the BHO campaign is above infiltrating blog sites in order to accomplish an agenda. Do you?”

~ Hey Jim, now THAT sounds like paranoia to me…lol

Old Guy, I realize you believe that you are offering valuable insight. I will allow you to bask in that belief because I have no desire to argue over semantics.

“I simply googled your articles and as you said, “Submitting articles online provides examples of my work and experience. What is wrong with that?” Nothing wrong with it, in fact I am assuming you submit your articles to be read. So I have given you free advertisement. It is common to include links to investigative information. Now, concerning your address and phone number; I have no desire to access your address or phone number. BHO’s campaign has handled anyone who has questioned his motives by personal attacks. I am not a stalker, I was simply asking questions.”

~ Yes…as you stated, I obviously submit articles for people to read. However, it has been my experience that when some people have nothing rational to offer as refute to my arguments (articles), they tend to resort to ad hominem tactics. You appear to fall under this category.

Dbs wrote:

“Oldguy, my legal name is Tiffani-(with an I) Martin.”

oldguy… how dare you !

yep looks like thin skin to me. don’t worry though taffani with an i. my wife doesn’t allow me to stock strange women. LOL!!!!!!!

remember oldguy it’s ok for them to trash you, but how dare you question them. pretty much the MO as far as i can tell. if thier not trashing us thier giving each other cyber hi fives, so let me take the time to say GREAT POST OLD GUY !!!”

~ Dcs…Why is it unreasonable to assume that old guy would present himself as possessing adequate reading skills by typing the name of the person he is attempting to expose, correctly? Considering all of the effort he put into his post, one would think he’d try to be precise. Oops, I guess not…

As far as attacking old guy, until today I had no ideal that he even existed. Let’s not forget that old guy responded to MY post. If you don’t want the bull, don’t mess with the horns…ya know?

~ To everyone who has put in a good word, thank you. I DO appreciate the response and take nothing for granted. I am glad that some people appreciate my efforts. I will continue to post here. Anyone who has a problem with that will surely find a way to get over it…

Thanks!

Tiffani

Posted by: Tiffani at October 31, 2008 9:37 PM
Comment #269041

I’m sick of all the pussy footing around. The main reason Obama could be elected is from the votes of people who want handouts, plain and simple. Were where they the last 10 elections?…Nowhere. Now they have the messiah…oh joy for me. Thank god they show up to f*@k me now.

If I happened to lose my job tomorrow I could live with family until I got back on my feet. Raise better families (yeah I said it) and a lot of this anger would be moot. But where would the Democrats get their votes? Oh the quandry.

Posted by: andy at November 1, 2008 12:32 AM
Comment #269050

andy your sheet is showing…”that ALL men are created equal”…remember where that came from? If not for the Democratic party, who would speak out on injustice? You really don’t think the red side would step in…do you???

Posted by: Marysdude at November 1, 2008 5:24 AM
Comment #269053

Tiffani;

Until I stoppped writing articles over there on the right side several months ago, I pretty much was hammered every time I put up a post.
One woman (I think it was a woman) tracked me down (it’s not very hard,believe me) and left a message once at my law office (not a nice one). She also posted my name and address here too.

I believe that she got the boot (not for that) and eventually disappeared from the site.

Here is my advice for you: Don’t be afraid…ever…to voice your opinion.

I like Old Guy. I wouldn’t know him if I fell over him, but he is intelligent enough, and passionate enough to respond to and post his opposition views here (and maybe other places).

Who isn’t passionate these days? I do not think that Old Guy (or anyone else here for that matter) poses you (or any other writer) any risk whatsoever.

Keep on writing. We (people on my side) may jump on you now and again for the content, but I am sure that all of us would defend your right to post anything here so long as it isn’t obsene, fraudulent, or incites immenent lawlessness (That’s Supreme Court stuff).

Type away.

THEN we’ll pick you apart.

After four weeks writing here, I received so many bonks on the head from the left, that I collected them and gave out the Mighty Eagle Award one time. The post had a zillion responses, and even stocic David Reemer thought some of the posts were hilarious. (Adrienne, my favorite adversay) won the best quip, as I recall.

Chill out, keep writing, and tell me why Barry’s aunt was here illegally, and why Barry, as a US Senator, did nothing about it.

See? The beat goes on….

Posted by: sicilian eagle at November 1, 2008 6:40 AM
Comment #269056

I think one of the problems for the Republicans is that their campaign this year has little to distinguish it in style from the last one, with the lamentable exception of consistency.

The Republicans are once again playing to the base, and it seems that after the election, that’s all they’ll have left. And I’m disturbed at the unfortunate withdrawal from the rest of society. But I guess its inevitable. If you spend your time withdrawing from everybody who you have a political disagreement with, sooner or later, you’ll be off in your own little world, and nobody will be able to talk you down from it.

McCain’s problem is, he had to keep that base, even as his greatest strength was his ability to appeal beyond it. To win his nomination, he had to go hard right like the Bush Administration. To keep his base enthused, he had to play to the George Bush crowd, and essentially select somebody who far too easily reminds people of Bush’s greatest faults as his Vice President, somebody who unfortunately fulfilled the worst expectations of inexperience and ignorance that one could apply to a mainly rural state. Worse, they sold her out of the gate as somebody she was demonstrably not.

And can we talk about the style of the campaign? What’s been putting Republicans back time and again are these demonstrations that their policies and politics are not in line with mainstream priorities or attitudes. It doesn’t get better when Republicans seem capable of rationalizing anything the campaigns do, no matter how stupid or simply bizarre.

Media bias has become a crutch for the Republicans. Rather than ask themselves serious questions about whether their policies work, rather than analyze whether their media presence has become ineffective or off-putting, rather than get the hint of where America has gone politically, the Republicans continue rationalizing staying put in their policies and politics, even while they seem on the verge of experience one of the worst elections they have in years.

I don’t think it’s unrelated. You cannot center a party on its fringe and America’s mainstream at the same time. People must be able to see a connection between their values and those of the party, and right now, Americans don’t see Republicans responding to their needs or attitudes.

Ninety percent of the recovery of the Democrats, I feel, has been recovering our ability to sell our values in universal terms, to think and act with consideration of other people’s mindsets, rather than cut them out. We’re not perfect, not so open minded that our brains are dangling out of our heads, but right now, we’re a hell of a lot more accommodating of other people’s politics than the Republicans are. The Republicans are not making anybody of truly moderate or moderated thinking feel welcome.

Either you agree with them, or your an enemy. Well, inevitably, you’ll get into disagreements with a lot of people, and when you feel that contempt and disrespect come your way, you will inevitably reconsider your loyalties.

Obama’s strength is that he’s perfectly fine with appealing to people in open terms. Democrats have not moved left or right alone, as some would observe, they’ve moved in both directions and broadened their hold on the middle. Rather than let their party become fragilly prone to disowning those who don’t toe the line, The Democrats have relaxed some of their attitudes, understanding that majorities are easier to compose when you’re more free to take individual positions.

The Republican’s vaunted message discipline, their way of upholding things on a party line on a rather common basis might have been good in the short term, but when change came to the electorate, it meant that they broke rather than bent as that new wind blew, they ended up on the wrong side of the debate. This is the price Republicans paid for purging their moderates: a base which cannot tolerate the spread of policy positions which would allow the party to comfortably shift in the face of changing political attitudes. The Republican party is addicted to radicalism, and addicted to such a degree that withdrawal will be painful for the party and costly.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 1, 2008 9:51 AM
Comment #269058

Tiffani wrote: “So, if you feel that I’m being too cautious for my own good, sue me…”

No, suing someone for being cautious or having an opinion would be a liberal course of action.

Posted by: Jim M at November 1, 2008 10:37 AM
Comment #269059

Yea, the right wing answer is to shoot em, or send them to a Syrian Prison for torture.

Posted by: Russ at November 1, 2008 11:02 AM
Comment #269061

Tiffani

it’s great that you choose to participate here. to get upset because someone accidently misspelled your name is a bit silly IMO. it might be better to just adress the point he made. i misspell words, and make grammatical errors all the time, and so do others. if you understand what someone is trying to say, it’s far more productive to just adress thier point rather than nit pick over things that aren’t that important, but hey, thats just my opinion.

Posted by: dbs at November 1, 2008 11:09 AM
Comment #269062

Jeez the BS just keeps flying
I read all this crap from the right side about Obama’s wanting to “give away”
What a load of crap
So I guess it is NOT ok to let the lower middle class get a tax break, but oil companies making record profits deserve a reduction in taxes~???
AND THAT IS NOT REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH????

THE PAST 8 YEARS OF REPUBLICAN RULE HAS RESULTED IN THE LARGEST REDISTIBUTION OF WEALTH IN AMERICAN HISTORY — UPWARDS
SOMEHOW THAT REDISTRIBUTION IS OK??
The right wing trick is convincing their middle class followers that they are not getting screwed by the Republican leadership — and that leadership is laughing all the way to the bank.
They know you are rubes and are playing you as such.
That redistribution DOES NOT CREATE JOBS.
Research with CEO’s have indicated that they do not create jobs based on tax breaks, they create jobs based on DEMAND FOR THEIR PRODUCT — people have to be buying their products or services in order to expand their company. There IS NO TAX BREAK that will make them create jobs without demand — they love the tax breaks because when the do start hiring they can bump up their bottom line even more!!! for doing what they were planning to do anyway (Welfare anyone????)

Joe the Plumber
What an idiot, even a friend of mine who is an ardent McCain supporter (actually more of an anti-Obama guy, he is an vet, and a POW who hates McCains guts for playing off his “HERO” persona)
anywho this guy is also a multi-business person (and works a 40 hour week at a regular job just for the fun of it, doesn’t need to in any way)
anywho, he agreed with me that any person who would pass up a buying a business that CLEARED 250000 because of a 3% tax increase WAS AN IDIOT!!
In fact we thought he was more of an idiot because he should be able to work it such that his company NEVER CLEARED 250000 — we both have ways of investing in the company to avoid having too much profit (profit gets taxed — it is better to spend it)
If the company were THAT profitable, you would be a total loser idiot to pass it up due to a percieved tax increase, — what a maroon!!
And for all the right wing sheep that buy into that malarkey — just shows how little they actually know about business, taxes and what is a good deal and what is not.

Obama is NOT giving away, go over to Factcheck.org and deal with objective looks at both campaigns — there are THINKING, LITERATE PEOPLE HERE WHO WILL NOT BUY YOUR PARTISAN BS LIES AND TALKING POINT.

Posted by: Russ at November 1, 2008 11:20 AM
Comment #269063

russ


“Jeez the BS just keeps flying”


“So I guess it is NOT ok to let the lower middle class get a tax break,”

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/reports/taxplan.html

the only bs flying here russ is yours.

Posted by: dbs at November 1, 2008 11:35 AM
Comment #269065

SE:

Thank you.

SD:

I don’t know if this point has ever been discussed onthis site before, but the base of the Republican Party is the conservatives. There has been a movement within the Republican Party to win elections without depending upon the base. It started several years ago and leaders in the Republican Party as well as moderate (republican) media people have pushed more moderate candidates. In all reality, there was a desire to win elections with moderate republican votes and Reagan democrats. The idea was to water down the conservative stand and attract moderates on both sides. The tuth is, Reagan won an overwhelming victory because he not only appealed to his base, but he enveloped a great many conservative people (the Reagan democrats). The majority of Americans are conservative and they just need a person who will run and stand on those conservative ideals.

Reporters like William Crystal, Fred Barns, and Charles Krauthamer where some of those involved in this idea of running a moderate. Many of the conservative base are also evangelical Christians. It became disturbing to these moderates to have to depend on a conservative Christian base to win elections. These same people pushed for John McCain to run on the republican ticket because McCain met their ideals of a moderate. The media has always loved McCain (up until now) because of his “maverick” status of throwing wrenches into republican plans.

You said, “To win his nomination, he had to go hard right like the Bush Administration.” I disagree; he won the nomination in spite of the conservative base. The base was choosing between too many nominees (and there is nothing wrong with that), but many of the Christian base supported Huckabee and therefore watering down the vote. Once McCain had the momentum, he went on to receive the nomination.

McCain never “enthused” his base until he brought Sarah Palin onto the ticket. It was “electrifying” to the conservative base. She met all the requirements of all conservatives, not just the Christians.

There is a lot of accusations thrown by BHO, that McCain is four more years of Bush, but the truth is, McCain was never like Bush and the base knew it. It has been said many times by conservatives, “if McCain wins the election, he will have to be dragged, kicking and screaming, across the finish line by the conservative base”.

Again, you said, “McCain’s problem is, he had to keep that base, even as his greatest strength was his ability to appeal beyond it.”

McCain has never tried to keep the base, because he believed he could win this election without the base; he honestly believed he could win with moderates of both parties. You said, “somebody who unfortunately fulfilled the worst expectations of inexperience and ignorance that one could apply to a mainly rural state. Worse, they sold her out of the gate as somebody she was demonstrably not.”

She was never sold as anything but part of the working class of people. Her husband was a “UNION” steel worker; they had a small business, she faced the same problems that everyday, common, fly-over people face. The left media and bloggers have relentlessly attacked Sarah Palin. She was not “vetted” properly and was uneducated, and had no experience, why was she attacked so viciously? Wouldn’t the American people be able to see her inexperience without attacks? The truth is, she was and is a great threat to the democrats because she appeals it the base of the Republican Party. I believe the left knew this from the beginning.

Rumors have spread, by media and bloggers, of the conflict between Palin and McCain’s campaigners. They may be partly true, because her basic ideology and McCain’s is not the same. But these rumors were meant to discourage republican voters. They even said she was “a loose canon”, pushing her own agenda while stumping. The base loved this.

You said, “What’s been putting Republicans back time and again are these demonstrations that their policies and politics are not in line with mainstream priorities or attitudes.” That remains to be seen. Why would the right want to place their policies and politics in line with the mainstream? If conservatives didn’t support McCain because they didn’t believe he was conservative enough, they certainly wouldn’t support him if his message were mainstream.

I won’t even try to discuss media bias.

You said, “You cannot center a party on its fringe and America’s mainstream at the same time. People must be able to see a connection between their values and those of the party, and right now, Americans don’t see Republicans responding to their needs or attitudes.”

The base does not want to “center its party”. As I said, and I will agree, McCain’s message appeals more to the middle, but as I said last week, “the base of the Republican Party, is not voting for McCain, we are voting for Palin”. You said, “People must be able to see a connection between their values and those of the party”. You are correct, but the people you speak of is the base, and the base don’t care what the mainstream of America believes.

You said again, “Either you agree with them, or your an enemy.” I think these words are a little strong, we are fighting the enemy in foreign countries, but here at home, we are all Americans. Both parties are very passionate about their beliefs, but I don’t believe we will have a civil war over it, even though some in the media have said this very thing.

“Obama’s strength is that he’s perfectly fine with appealing to people in open terms. Democrats have not moved left or right alone, as some would observe, they’ve moved in both directions and broadened their hold on the middle.”

I will close with two last thoughts:

1.BHO says what people want to hear, that does not mean he will fulfill those promises. You have been around long enough to know “what they say and what they do are two different things”.

2.Secondly, the left has not moved anywhere; they are still on the left, and broadening their hold on the middle remains to be seen.

The things I have said are my opinion as a Christian conservative. They are based upon my feelings and the hundreds of acquaintances I have, who believe the same way as I do.

I believe the democratic party has been hijacted by the fringe left, just as the right has been pushed to a more moderate stand. If McCain wins, I belive there will be a restructuring of both parties to thier base beliefs. If they don’t it will cause the demise of the parties. Those in the middle column have been saying this for a long time

Posted by: Oldguy at November 1, 2008 11:43 AM
Comment #269069
No, suing someone for being cautious or having an opinion would be a liberal course of action.

Another example of a stereotypical reaction of the “Right”, taking a quote taken out of context and painting a negative stereotype against those who disagrees with them.

Posted by: Cubed at November 1, 2008 12:33 PM
Comment #269070

SD

“Media bias has become a crutch for the Republicans.”

I wonder why?

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D945SHBG1&show_article=1

Posted by: Oldguy at November 1, 2008 12:43 PM
Comment #269074

Oldguy-
I would say McCain did his best to mollify folks on your party’s hard right, rather than run the middle course. It’s not an accident that you see a trend towards greater agreement with Bush as we get towards 2008

Here’s the thing: when Bush first ran, he ran as a moderate. In that time period, a gentler trend towards the left was evident. The Senate grew neatly divided, Bush lost the popular vote, and only Florida made him President. 9/11 gave the country a hard shove to the right, which the Republicans took to be a permanent shift. Bush and the Republicans, though, underestimated the permanence of that shift, both as the fear and anxiety of that period lessened, and the fear and anxiety of Bush’s policy failures increased.

The Republicans did their absolute best to first try to make their advantage over the Democrats permanent. This lead to Democrats snapping back in reaction; they reached a breaking point all around, not merely on the far left. Look at Jack Murtha. I would be absurd to call him hard left. Harry Reid either. Nor could you really call many of the folks in Congress who took over Republican seats that.

The change is partywide, an increasing identification of standard Democratic policies as worthy of upholding and activism, rather than mere defense and apology. Some on the right might call this hard left, but that terms seems to be flung around as a rhetorical convenience rather than as an accurate description. The sorry part of that, though, is the way it feeds back into becoming what Republicans must oppose, a trend only guaranteed to make the Republicans even more radical.

As the policies of the Bush Administration and the Republican Congress were more aggressively pushed, we saw the second phase of this: the essential divorce of the center from the right. The Republicans like to talk about media bias. Well how about their own, then? The lever that cracked the concrete of the Republican dominance in Washington was the perception of real, substantive, undeniable distance between the Republican’s claims of authority and competence and their real world performance.

What good was electing Republicans when they didn’t live up to their own hype, When they didn’t bring us victory in wars, When their elite-focused economic policies didn’t trickle down as promised?

Republicans talk about it as being a failure of conservatism. To be blunt, current conservative philosophy is part of the failure. The former version was problematic in dealing with the complexity of markets that we saw in the 1920’s and 1930’s, and this version certainly isn’t capable of handling what we have in the 1990’s and 2000’s.

The Republicans need a less divisive, more pragmatic banner to flock under. They need to realize that the last thing you need to do is fly an economy of this complexity by the seat of our pants. They need to take another look at their military and foreign policy, and aim for what works, rather than what’s most hawkish. They need to remember a time when Republicans were also progressive, less focused on writing policy for the sake of the elites.

Democrats look at Obama, and though they sometimes don’t like how he holds back on the Republicans, or how non-ideologically he operates, they’ve learned to trust his instincts, even adopt them themselves. He’s a good example for my side. Hopefully, we’ll avoid the mistakes and hubris that has sunk your party into such doldrums. But then I also hope that Republicans recover their senses and set to work making their party work for an America that has moved on from what it once was.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 1, 2008 1:15 PM
Comment #269077

Old guy,
according to your link
“Comments made by sources, voters, reporters and anchors that aired on ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts over the past two months reflected positively on Obama in 65 percent of cases, compared to 31 percent of cases with regards to McCain, according to the Center for Media and Public Affairs
now lets do a little research into their source
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_Media_and_Public_Affairs
History

The Center for Media and Public Affairs was founded in the mid 1980s by S. Robert Lichter and Linda Lichter.[2] According to Salon.com, “the seed money for [the] center was solicited by the likes of Pat Buchanan and Pat Robertson”.

and from wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Media_and_Public_Affairs

Media Transparency documents that between 1986 and 2005 CMPA received 55 grants totaling $2,960,916 (unadjusted for inflation).[from:↑ “Center for Media and Public Affairs, Inc.”, Media Transparency, accessed February 2008.] The data reveals that the overwhelming proportion of CMPA’s funding comes from conservative foundations.

The funding information, covering 1986-2005, lists the following donors (note: all figures are unadjusted for inflation):

* Carthage Foundation, part of the Scaife Foundations - $512,000 from 8 donations
* the Earhart Foundation contributed $120,000 in six grants between 1999 and 2003;
* John M. Olin Foundation - $730,000 from 15 donations between 1986 and 2001;
* Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation - $250,000 nine grants over the period between 1989 and 1995;
* Sarah Scaife Foundation, part of the Scaife Foundations - $760,000 from 9 donations spanning the period between 1991 and 2003; and
* Smith Richardson Foundation - $416,916 from 3 donations between 1998 and 2001;

Thus, out of the total of $2,960,916 in foundation grants, nearly all of it ($2,668,916) came from just four sources: the John M. Olin, Scaife, and Smith Richardson foundations. In other words, CMPA received 86% of its foundation funding from those four donors. Here is a sample of other right-wing causes funded by these 3 donors, as listed by their respective SourceWatch articles:

* John M. Olin Foundation - American Enterprise Institute, Project for the New American Century
* Scaife Foundations - American Enterprise Institute, Heritage Foundation
* Smith Richardson Foundation - American Enterprise Institute, Hudson Institute

As a side note — negative campaigning will get negative press,as it should.
—Savage

Posted by: A Savage at November 1, 2008 1:27 PM
Comment #269084

SD:

I would not call Jack Murtha or Harry Reid moderates. In fact Reid, Being the majority leader of the senate, works well with Pelosie in passing a liberal agenda.

“The lever that cracked the concrete of the Republican dominance in Washington was the perception of real, substantive, undeniable distance between the Republican’s claims of authority and competence and their real world performance.

What good was electing Republicans when they didn’t live up to their own hype, When they didn’t bring us victory in wars, When their elite-focused economic policies didn’t trickle down as promised?

Republicans talk about it as being a failure of conservatism.”

As I said, I am a conservative Christian, and the reason the republicans lost 2 years ago was the fact that they deserted their core conservative beliefs. I can tell you this in no other way accept to say this is how we felt.

We felt that another vote for these moderate republicans was no different than voting for a democrat. There was a lot of dissapointment among our ranks. As I said in the earlier post, this was part of a plan to hijack the republican party by moderates. Whether we win or loose, I believe there will be a conserted effort to bring the republican party back to the right.


A Savage:

Here we go again, conspiracy theories. No comment!

Posted by: Oldguy at November 1, 2008 2:54 PM
Comment #269088

Oldguy-
Look, the Republicans never relied on you folks alone, nor could they. They may have lost support among your folks, but that was one part of their failure, not the only part. There a marked shift in the moderates which took the party from the other side.

That’s why the appeal in both directions is so important.

However, Neither Reid nor Murtha are far left. They are simply the most visible targets for the people who like to tell you that just about any Democrat is far left. I mean, Murtha is a pro-life, pro-military fellow who’s basically kept himself re-elected for a couple generations in what you could call a Reagan Democrat district. And Reid? He’s also pro-life, in addition to taking the conservative position on gay marriage, the Death Penalty.

Before you start talking about who is far left and who is not, you’d better know what the person stands for.

Now I don’t doubt that Republicans will feel the impulsed to double down on their partisan politics. But that’s not going to be the wisest move for a minority party.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 1, 2008 3:10 PM
Comment #269090

SD:

Murtha lost his pro-military status when he accused the military of murder, of which they were exonerated.
I predict murtha looses his seat.

Reid plays it smart because he represents a pro-life state.

Posted by: Oldguy at November 1, 2008 3:21 PM
Comment #269091

I’m a neophyte when it comes to politics and policies. I just read people and see what, in my eyes, what/who they are.

I can’t understand how we can have one of the most diverse land masses, diverse cultures, diverse resources, and most off all FREE People. We can’t do better? We can’t get our shit together and really make a difference?

I’m an American godamnit! I have faith (although I don’t go to church) that we can overcome and succeed and really lead the world. Just stop this political crap, and stop the greed.

How much to people need really? It’s not that much. When I see someone drive by in a car that costs 100k I do feel angry. Not out of jealousy, because I know that my 25k car gets me there just as well.

Rambling… But damn, i’m so SICK of this.

Posted by: bandman at November 1, 2008 3:26 PM
Comment #269094

“it’s great that you choose to participate here. to get upset because someone accidently misspelled your name is a bit silly IMO. it might be better to just adress the point he made. i misspell words, and make grammatical errors all the time, and so do others. if you understand what someone is trying to say, it’s far more productive to just adress thier point rather than nit pick over things that aren’t that important, but hey, thats just my opinion.”


Name spelling: in addition to correcting him on what would have been obvious to an elementary school student, I addressed old guys ‘points,’ thoroughly. For you to suggest otherwise is a fallacy…

How’s about you put your money where your mouth is?

Mouth:

“it might be better to just adress the point he made.”

“it’s far more productive to just adress thier point rather than nit pick over things that aren’t that important…”

Show me the money:

Show by example, contribution of a productive nature. Don’t be a typical neo-con, toting a persecution complex. I challenge you to pick one or two of the questions/points from my article and address/defend those, rationally and accurately. :>)

How much time can you spend criticizing the character of someone whom you don’t know (me), before it solely reflects on you?

There is a lot of good information in this thread. When I have more time, this weekend, I’m going to respond to some other points of view here. I certainly do not want the fact that I have only responded to peripheral detraction to reflect on me.


Posted by: Tiffani at November 1, 2008 4:08 PM
Comment #269097

Tiffani

once again, it was merely an observation on my part. you stated that you didn’t have thin skin, and proceeded to get testy over the fact oldguy misspelled your name, by accident i might add.

“in addition to correcting him on what would have been obvious to an elementary school student,”

i rest my case.

“How’s about you put your money where your mouth is?”

clue me in here. what are you talking about.


“Show by example, contribution of a productive nature. Don’t be a typical neo-con, toting a persecution complex.”

actually i did in your last post, but you never adressed that. so now the best you can do is to call me a “typical neo-con, toting a persecution complex.” how is this productive ? how does that further the debate.

Posted by: dbs at November 1, 2008 4:45 PM
Comment #269098

Rpblcns here like Jim Edgar and Judy Barr Topinka would probably be more like conserative Democrats in other places, but they still need the single issue voters on abortion and tax rates.

Fans of Bill Ayer, with his little red star on the top of his blog, http://billayers.wordpress.com/ , might like to watch a documentary from 2003 called The Weather Underground, available on youtube downloads, but the DVD has a full commentary track with Ayers and his wife.

I have to admit that I was wrong about BHO starting his next campaign after the election, since he has already started it three days ago.

Here is BHO in 2004 lying about starting his next campaign http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4yCwqtuv5Q

People should not use their real names on the internet, or point at pictures of themselves, but let their words speak for them.

Posted by: ohrealy at November 1, 2008 4:49 PM
Comment #269099

Oldguy-
My father came in one day while I was watching a show on the military channel and was astounded that I was watching such a show with obvious interest. I had to explain to him that I wasn’t a pacifist, and never really had been.

I came to oppose our remaining in Iraq because of a combination of factors.

First, the distraction from Afghanistan, from Bin Laden. Second, the abuse of American’s trust and dependence on the intelligence community that the case for war, which justified the distraction, turned out to be. Third, the war was just not properly strategized out, but worse, these people showed little interest in correcting their course.

I came to oppose our continued presence in Iraq, ultimately, when in 2005, 2006, it became apparent to me that we just simply had failed utterly to prevent our enemies from getting what they wanted. And where we succeeded, Iraqi’s deserved a lot of the credit and still do.

We have too few soldiers, not enough respect, and ultimately, not enough influence on events to justify further presence. Now I understand, like my candidate does, that we can’t be careless moving out. Which is why, like my candidate, I wish to be careful and gradual in the withdrawal. As careful getting out as we were careless getting in.

Am I anti-soldier, because I believed that our soldiers had killed civilians in Haditha, without justification? No. I am pro-discipline. I am pro- facing problems, taking responsibility. Secrecy makes things worse, not better. Secrecy helped create Abu Ghraib.

But the Republicans seem to have defined things in terms of a code of silence, in terms of criticism or even frank discussion of these things being politically incorrect. And so Murtha, who probably doesn’t have anti-soldier bone in his body has his pro-soldier credentials questioned.

Hell, it’s so bad, there are people in your party who question the loyalty of soldiers who have come out against the war. Loyalty to the politics of the war is seen as a more important than getting soldiers body or vehicle armor, more important than bulking up the ranks of the soldiers so that we can get back to a sane level of readiness for a nation with global interests and two ongoing wars.

I mean, that’s what shocked me, and what offends Murtha in particular, is this business of sending soldiers back to the front again and again, putting them through multiple tours of duty, extending tours of duty, monkeying with the deployments schedules, and doing everything to wear the armed forces thin and little to truly strengthen it. Is this supporting our soldiers?

But we raise these questions, and suddenly we’re the disloyal ones.

I have been consistent in my calls and demands for what our soldiers need, whether that’s the right equipment or the right strategy for victory or dealing with the defeat of our strategy. But again and again, I see these questions about my patriotism and my feelings for the soldiers.

If nothing else offends me about all this, it has been the politicization of just about everything to do with our foreign policy, including this war. We can’t move, can’t do what we need to do because every Republican feels more obligated to justify a political agenda than to get the practical elements right.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 1, 2008 4:59 PM
Comment #269105

Lets see
McCain wants to give tax cuts to upper class
and oil companies and an independent analysis of his tax plan shows that you and I will not see any tax relief under his plan, in fact if you count in the fact that he will tax your company provided health benefits I will be seeing a Tax Raise under McCain.
Bushes tax cuts resulted in about $500 bucks for us grunts in the lower tier
Meanwhile industries with record profits (oil and agri business) got huge tax cuts and and subsidies.

Obama does not believe it is right to shift the tax burden from the upper 1% to us in the lower 99% — silly him, thinking that those of us who actually work for a living should not share an undue burden of the taxes.

get a grip
The Repubs SCREW you guys royally and all you can say is “GIVE ME SOME MORE OF THAT”
WAKE UP

Posted by: Russ at November 1, 2008 6:31 PM
Comment #269106

Stephen,

Excellent post regarding our military and the politicization of every issue by the republicans. I could not agree more.

Posted by: Tom at November 1, 2008 6:55 PM
Comment #269107

SD:

What in the heck are you talking about? I never questioned your patriotism. The way you guys on the left keep defending your patriotism, it appears you are having Freudian moments. All I said was, Murtha may pay the price on Election Day for what he said. Hey, he lives in a dem-controlled district and it speaks volumes if he gets rolled.

For your information, I was never for the war. If I were President, I would have given Hussein two days and then I would have turned Iraq into a sea of glass with no troops on the ground, and then I would have told Iran, “one word out of you or one movement into any country other than your own and this happens to you”.

But, you know what, we are there and we are giving the Iraqis something they have never had; it’s called freedom. President Bush and the congress had reason to believe we should go. I have a Democrat Senator who voted to go and you know what, I don’t second-guess them.

I give you credit for calling for better equipment for the troops. But you know what, Barney Franks is calling for a 25% cut in military spending, where do you suppose he will start? Charley Rangel has called to reinstate the draft. We have an all volunteer military, why would he call for a draft?

http://usgovinfo.about.com/b/2006/11/28/as-rangel-calls-for-draft-registering-is-still-the-law.htm

Posted by: Oldguy at November 1, 2008 6:56 PM
Comment #269113

Tiffan(i):

“There is a lot of good information in this thread. When I have more time, this weekend, I’m going to respond to some other points of view here. I certainly do not want the fact that I have only responded to peripheral detraction to reflect on me.”

I’m glad I was able to help pull you out of your shell:)

Posted by: Oldguy at November 1, 2008 7:27 PM
Comment #269115

Lets look at waste in the military
From Take the Rich Off Welfare

“When it comes to wasting money, the Pentagon has no peer. For one thing, there’s the single question of scale. For fiscal year 1996, the Pentagon budget was $265 billion ($7 billion more than it requested). That’s 5% of our gross national product, a larger percentage than in virtually any other industrialized nation.
In absolute dollars (not as a percentage of GNP), the Pentagon shells out 3 1/2 times more than the next largest military spender (Russia), 6 1/2 times more than Britain, 7 1/2 times more than France, 7 1/4 times more than Japan, 8 1/2 times more than Germany. Our military budget is bigger than the next nine largest military budgets combined, and sixteen times larger than the combined military budgets of all of our “regional adversaries”- Cuba, Syria, Iran, Iraq, North Korea and Libya. It accounts for 37% of all military spending on the planet (in comparison, our economy is only 22% of the world total).”

Now please note this book was written in 1996 —well before our current no-bid contract, no oversight Adminisration

from http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/05/18/MN251738.DTL
[2003]
“The Department of Defense, already infamous for spending $640 for a toilet seat, once again finds itself under intense scrutiny, only this time because it couldn’t account for more than a trillion dollars in financial transactions, not to mention dozens of tanks, missiles and planes.”

Now lets factor “starwars” and all the other new weapon systems that the military industrial complex wants to build and we are paying them to research
And 2 quotes by the great Republican Eisenhower
“We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. “
“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. “

—Savage

Posted by: A Savage at November 1, 2008 8:05 PM
Comment #269124

Oldguy-
If Murtha pays the price for anything, it will be that “racist” comment a few weeks ago. It will not be for his stance on the war. If that were the case, he’d have been dumped two years ago.

Remember what I said about his district. It’s not liberal the way you’re thinking. You folks tend to take the long lens view of Democrats: we’re not all alike. Murtha’s people are not the wine and cheese set. Beer and chips are more like it.

On the subject of a sea of glass? Such a clean image. The Ugly reality of nuclear weapons would be that even a moderate nuclear attack would have far reaching consequences, and would practically guarantee the eventual use of a warhead on an American city. The reality of nuclear weapons is ugly.

We gave them what we could call freedom. But what do you call it when you’re herded around, or shot, or whatever, simply for your religion? Is that free? Is it freedom to depend on a local warlord, one who likely acts like a Mafia Don, for protection? Is it freedom for women to have to practically dress in potato sacks to satisfy the self-appointed guardians of morality?

Is it freedom to have to worry about suicide bombers, day in and day out?

Is it freedom to have a foreign occupying army riding around on your streets? Let’s be honest with ourselves: we might be enjoying hanging around, but how much would you enjoy somebody invading your country and letting it go to hell the way we did?

I will second guess my government when I think they deserve it. Our soldiers deserve better than mute acquiescence. Their asses are on the line, why shouldn’t the politicians who sent them there have their asses on the line as well?

On the subject of budget cuts? I think most will start with the war. But let me ask you something: how much of this stuff is actually going to the soldiers who really need it, or winning the war? I think it’s possible for us to reduce the Pentagon’s budget bloat, and perhaps even necessary to free up the money.

As far as the draft goes? There are good arguments for not having it. The professional army is generally better trained, better disciplined. But at the same time, there might be some points to bringing it back.

First, it should be obvious: if we had a draft, we’d probably have not had to worry about manpower the same way.

Second, it would give policy makers pause. “If I start or support this war, is it worth it enough to risk having my son or daughter sent to this place?”

Third, it would give the average person a stake in the issue, would spread the experience of the war across the population, rather than confining the personal costs and experience of the war to a class of safely ignorable professionals.

Rangel himself is a veteran, so he’s not lightly making this suggestion.

As far as patriotism goes, I did not say you personally were doing it, I was just registering my frustration at the way Republicans tend to handle disagreements on military matters.

Your party is looking for moments to exploit, trying to make any statement of pride or vindication in America’s spirit, so that any swell of pride from the Democrats is turned into some kind of question about our previous pride.

How can you get a unified country on any war if this is how the politics are going to be played? I don’t think most military strategists would recommending dividing your country before you go to war, but the politicos at the Bush Administration did just that, with intentional partisan attacks and unintention underminings of the credibility of the Iraq war operation.

At the heart of this argument, I guess you could place this axiom: real war, real necessity and a real way to win it. No screwing around in divisive politics. Can you convince most Americans to back the war, and on what substantive grounds? Do you have your facts in order, or just your own prejudices?

And do you really know what you’re doing?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 1, 2008 10:37 PM
Comment #269141

Stephen,

Speaking of how to provide a unified country…take a look at this ‘last minute salvo’ by the mccain camp…now you know why I refuse to capitalize his name:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/01/the-stench-run-republican_n_140056.html

If ever there was a person who actually WANTED to divide this nation it is the half-man mccain…

Posted by: Marysdude at November 2, 2008 3:01 AM
Comment #269155

I apologize if this has been mentioned before, but this just dawned on me. Tiffani is accused of being an Obama “plant,” yet she is one of the writers here who use her full, legal name in her posts. Meanwhile, others (myself included) use pen names, initials or generic names (e.g., oldguy) that could be any of a few million people. Unbelievable.

Posted by: Sam McD at November 2, 2008 10:26 AM
Comment #269170

Just for the heck of it…has anyone else wondered why Palin’s “promise” to release her medical records hasn’t been fulfilled yet? I mean, at this point if that ticket were to win, then whatever she is obviously trying to hide would be nearly impossible to question or challenge.
Obviously one more lie in a string of tactics used to circumvent the law. I guess maybe we’ve gotten so used to that in the last administration that more of the same has little effect on us.

http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-131782

Posted by: janedoe at November 2, 2008 11:34 AM
Comment #269177

Sam McD

she is also an aspiring writer who wants people to know who she is. using her name adds credibility as it shows she stands behind her work. kinda different than someone just blogging for fun.

Posted by: dbs at November 2, 2008 12:39 PM
Comment #269184

Oldguy asked if she was a plant, he didn’t accuse her of being a plant.

When “Joe the Plumber” asked questions, he was attacked and his rights were violated in Ohio. He has a good court case.

When anyone asks questions about BHO, they are attacked. There is an unhealthy pattern here.

Posted by: Oldguy at November 2, 2008 2:06 PM
Comment #269186

I wonder if this means Lee E is a mccain plant…or does Oldgut speak up here because he’s on the mccain payroll…or…or…or…I guess the question is, does Old respect Tiffani’s writing so much he just can’t help but think she’s a professional writer…wow, what a compliment. And if he admires the writing so much, do you suppose he also agrees with her writing…is he a closet Democrat? Or has he gotten so tired of throwing poop at Obama, he just had to change targets…any target in a storm???

Posted by: Marysdude at November 2, 2008 2:22 PM
Comment #269188

>When “Joe the Plumber” asked questions, he was attacked and his rights were violated in Ohio. He has a good court case.

Posted by: Oldguy at November 2, 2008 02:06 PM

Old,

I deny this…when Joe asked his question, he was left alone. It was not until mccain began to use Joe as his Poster Child that he was challenged. If, a part of the opposition’s program can’t be challenged…what can? And, even then his freedom of speech was not dampened or challenged, just his accuracy, his good taxpaying citizenship, and his standing as a certified plumber…no one told him what not to say, and in fact there is a question as to whether or not mccain told him what TO say…

Posted by: Marysdude at November 2, 2008 2:28 PM
Comment #269206

Sorry — the sad fact that mccain did not vet either joe the plumber or palin is not really anyone’s fault but mccains. He is the one that brought them into the political arena as his surrogates.He put them into the spot-light to be investigated. you can not blame the press and public for doing its job.
—Savage

Posted by: A Savage at November 2, 2008 4:20 PM
Comment #269292

look that website ;)
http://www.myamerica-forever.com

Posted by: Mike at November 3, 2008 12:50 PM
Comment #269293

Mike said ” nothing”
Why ?
post a reason to follow your link and your thoughts on it and maybe I will look at it. without at least that —why should I?
— Savage

Posted by: A Savage at November 3, 2008 1:24 PM
Post a comment