are always bitching about the need for change in this country, like McCain just did in his most recent ad, but like conservatives totally run the administration in this country. I mean the white house is overwhelmingly conservative/republican. They've run it for 8 years....if we need change it sure as hell aint the evil democrats causing the problem.

9/8/2008 10:30:14 PM

to call dubya a conservative is an affront to actual conservatives all over the country. So yes, if you want change, then a democrat is the last thing you want. but nice try at a parrott!!!

9/8/2008 10:31:43 PM

I guess that's why your VP pick spends like the fucking dickens.

9/8/2008 10:42:25 PM

keep telling yourself that

9/8/2008 10:46:51 PM

I mean..uh..

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080908/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_palin

Quote :

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

And do I need to find any of the hundreds of news articles which show that she backed the bridge to Nowhere, only stopping when it was dead in the water, and then ended up taking the money anyway?

9/8/2008 10:50:03 PM

supplanter,

McCain is not Bush and agrees with him much more rarely than Obama likes to portray. So it shouldn't come as any surprise that he would disagree with the dirction Bush has taken us.

Of course, it would be a total surprise if you lived in a binary world of Republican or Democrat--Obama or McCain. I'm glad I don't live in that world. I hope you will learn to leave it behind.

9/8/2008 10:53:41 PM

i was not aware that the Governor of Alaska had any pull in asking Washington for money. Now Senators and Congressmen... BTW, I thought part of the reason we take so much money in is in order to redistribute it where it is needed, God... I mean, isn't that the point? What if Alaska actually needed all of that money? Are you going to deny Alaska the money it needs?

9/8/2008 10:57:36 PM

It's fun seeing the cognitive dissonance at work in your posts.

9/8/2008 10:59:06 PM

No, just attacking your bullshit on more than one front.

9/8/2008 11:00:44 PM

Here was the sequence of events:

Me: Palin spends a lot of money

You: No she doesn't

Me: *News articles proving she spends a lot of money*

You: Well, maybe she needed the money!? Besides, here's a straw man!

9/8/2008 11:01:51 PM

not exactly a strawman. do you favour giving money back to taxpayers directly according to how much they paid in? if not, then you might be a hypocrite...

9/8/2008 11:07:14 PM

Funny that people just assume that McCain will be just like Bush, because he has an R by his name. That's all the Obama camp has against him, so that's what he will use.

For example, when Bush 1 took over after Reagan, he practically cleaned house. I've heard that there was some serious animosity between the administrations.

9/8/2008 11:15:39 PM

^i'm pretty sure that "assumption" has to do with the fact that john mccain aligned himself much more along party lines this election year - he used to be more towards the center

and after doing so, he DOES support the majority of Bush ideals, initiatives, etc, i thought that was pretty clear now a days...

9/8/2008 11:56:13 PM

^ Not really. McCain supports extending Bush's tax cuts (a political non-starter in a Democratic congress anyways) and continuing our presence in Iraq (a position once held by most Democrats, including Barack Obama, until the polls started turning south).

Aside from that, McCain and Bush differ on most major issues, especially domestic and environmental issues: Global Warming, Torture (no McCain never flip-flopped on this issue, stop reading ThinkProgress if you can't think for yourself first), reducing government's role in health care (Bush supported the most extensive expansion of Medicare since its creation by LBJ), campaign finance reform, etc.

And McCain has worked hard on these issues through out the past several years. He introduced the first bill into the Senate that proposed setting limits on GHG emissions, for example. There are plenty of things I don't like about McCain's platform (his stance on North Korea and Iran most especially), but to say that he is the next Bush-term is pretty retarded.

[Edited on September 9, 2008 at 12:21 AM. Reason : ``]

9/9/2008 12:19:13 AM

For the same reason that self-styled "progressives" bitch and bitch about the invasions of civil liberties and then turn around and vote to renew the PATRIOT Act, retroactively grant immunity to telecoms for spying on citizens, and so forth.

Power corrupts.

[Edited on September 9, 2008 at 12:35 AM. Reason : .]

9/9/2008 12:34:50 AM

ARGH BU$$$$$$H IS SPYING ON ME!!!!


take my guns!

9/9/2008 9:31:56 AM

Quote :

"to call dubya a conservative is an affront to actual conservatives all over the country"

This cracks me up. These same people that elected him twice are now trying disavow everything to do with the guy - all the while expecting that it shouldn't affect our opinion of their judgement.

9/9/2008 10:54:07 AM

^^^ I believe the courts and the Justice Department granted immunity to the telecoms and the Patriot Act was renewed while Republicans still held Congress.

9/9/2008 11:05:32 AM

Quote :

"Patriot Act was renewed while Republicans still held Congress."

Not quite.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/07/patriot.act/

It was renewed in '06. Democrats held both houses by then.

Also, telecom immunity occurred during Democratic control of both houses.

Which mean neither party's hands are clean.

9/9/2008 11:09:35 AM

Quote :

"McCain is not Bush and agrees with him much more rarely than Obama likes to portray. So it shouldn't come as any surprise that he would disagree with the dirction Bush has taken us."

if the definition of rarely is 90% of time then that statement is correct

9/9/2008 11:18:47 AM

^^ Ok, I'll give you the patriot Act. But even if 100% of Republicans voted for it and 90% of Democrats voted against it, it would have still passed. I'd have to look at each individuals voting record, which I am not about to do.

I'm 99% sure that telecom immunity was handled by the Justice Department and the Supreme Court, something that Congress has absolutely no control over.

9/9/2008 11:21:17 AM

Which would be fine if that were the story. It's not.

The PATRIOT Act passed by 357-66 in the House, and 98-1 in the Senate (Russ Feingold was the only dissenting vote). Its renewal was 257 - 171 in the House (which now had more Democrats). Not to mention that the Democrats held the gavel in 2005, which gave them substantial procedural advantage - i.e., this didn't even need to come out of committee if they didn't want it to. The fact is, substantial numbers of Democrats went over to support this both times.

As for the Senate, it passed the second time by a margin of 89-10. Which is hardly a matter of a mere 10% of Democrats defecting.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00029

As for Telecom immunity, the fact is, Congress explicitly granted retroactive immunity to the telecoms, forever sealing off any possible ability to prosecute for what they did. In effect, they handed the Bush Administration a blank check, saying, "Really, it's okay that you illegally spied on U.S. citizens in domestic circumstances. See, look, we'll make sure not a thing happens as a result of this." Whether or not the Justice Department would have handled it now is inconsequential - the fact is, the Democrats were plenty complicit in making sure it never happens.

So, again - neither party's hands are clean. All I'm saying.

[Edited on September 9, 2008 at 11:32 AM. Reason : .]

9/9/2008 11:25:29 AM

why is it that most conservatives are notably less intelligent?

or maybe they're not - just their blind party loyalty outweighs real objectivity:

http://tinyurl.com/5ctuj2

9/9/2008 11:43:25 AM

I know its impossible to turn the dialog this way...but it would be nice to change the liberal-conservative debate into one of policy, result, and ideas, rather than one of identity, anecdote, and party. Pie in the sky I know.

9/9/2008 4:13:46 PM