If the Conservatives don't back McCain?

[concretejungle]

No. I think they play far less dirty than people have been led to believe. The whole "dishonorable" and "will do anything" thing is an effective PR ploy. Look at the standards of the game the past 10 years. Get a grip.

http://www.lizmichael.com/clintond.htm

And in no way do I think that Bush lowering the standards should make any other wrong doing all right.

[enlosandes]

http://www.lizmichael.com/clintond.htm

And in no way do I think that Bush lowering the standards should make any other wrong doing all right.

Shouldn't the Repubs be holding that info back until Hillary gets the nomination? That seems like some pretty juicest stuff, hard to believe it would be released and circulated to benefit Obama.

[timvwcom]

I disagree. Karl Rove most assuredly has a laboratory in his secret Volcano Lair where he and his pals are cloning flying monkeys at a prodigious rate. When he lets them loose, watch out. Obama is incredibly vulnerable from a number of angles. I see the wave he is on now - but that wave is only among a certain set of Democrats in certain places. And his team has been adept at dodging issues with the family, as it were, that will be un-dodgable in a broader context. A general election will be a very different breed of cat - both in character and the strange mechanics of the electoral college.

I'm betting the the top Republican strategists are praying for Obama to get the nod...

Love the whole Rove/Volcano/Clone Lab/Flying Monkeys angle... only thing that seems to be missing is them flying out of someones butt?

I see a couple things I'll comment on...

-First; The whole "Rove has an evil plan that will defeat the Dems" was played last mid term = no dice.

-Also, I think that one of the only reasons Rove could pull off some of that stuff was because the fact the Republicans were big bags of corrupt shit was not yet apparent (as it is now), until AFTER GWB won his second term.

-I'd ask those who doubt that once he is the nominee, he'll get a bounce... Just look at McCain, even as unattractive as he is to many of the Republicans, once he became the "presumptive" nominee the Republican establishment has started to close rank. I see it being even more pronounced with Obama.

-I think the fact he's had to battle Clinton so tough for the nomination, has made both he AND HIS TEAM stronger and more formidable for the general. I wouldn't be surprised to have him come out of the primaries with a 10 point lead and hold it/build on it straight thru to November.

[spindrift]

...only thing that seems to be missing is them flying out of someones butt?

Damn, did I forget to type that part?

I do not think Rove has magic powers. But make no mistake - he & his buddies remain an experienced & powerful force. I detest those guys - but they are skilled at what they do. Loss or no loss last round.

[mr_gyptian]

The congressman that lost their seats in 2006 did not deserve to win. Neither their congressional record, nor their campaigns were worthy of re-election. Unfortunately asswipes like Stevens, Lott, Byrd, etc. weren't cleaned out with them.

A campaign issue that will also rear its head, something that I believe is of the utmost importance. Something that I believe was the reason for the '06 republican debacle is the earmark problem that plagues congress. McCain requested exactly none during the last term. Hillary got $342 million. The american people are tired of the catering to special interests that has been rampant in congress for atleast the last decade. McCain can stand on very firm ground that he despises this practice.

[grrrr]

First, many I's and D's are anti war, and McCain and Thompson are huge cheerleaders for war. McCain seems to actually LIKE war, I mean shit, he said it's OK if we are in Iraq for 10,000 years. That line right there will cost him a million votes.

As an independent, I'd say you hit it on the head. I was pro-McCain over Bush the first time out, and would have voted for him over whatever lame look-alike Dem that ran that year...but he's lost my vote.

Dig back to the threads at the beginning of the war. I was strongly opposed to it because we couldn't afford it...not to mention that it would not affect the numbers of radical muslims in the world, and would not make us safer.

Frankly, those are still true. The war made a significant negative impact on our economy, we are even more hated by the radical muslims, and we have wasted countless millions on the department of bloatland security.

McCain wants to continue that. We can't afford it.

[CUBUCK]

Just for clarification because I have been hearing this a lot. When McCain talks about troops in Iraq for 100 years, how is that any different then the troops we still have stationed in Germany, South Korea and even Cuba? In some cases these troops have been there for 60 years now. I don't think he is referring to a war itself lasting 100 years, is he?

[RootSkier]

Hard to say, his rantings on war are mostly incoherent.

I think you are partially right, cubuck, but I also think that independent of anyones specific views, that's not really what the majority of the electorate wants to hear right now.

[mr_gyptian]

Just for clarification because I have been hearing this a lot. When McCain talks about troops in Iraq for 100 years, how is that any different then the troops we still have stationed in Germany, South Korea and even Cuba? In some cases these troops have been there for 60 years now. I don't think he is referring to a war itself lasting 100 years, is he?

Rootskier claims he said 10000 years.

[RootSkier]

How about a million?

"After the event ended, I asked McCain about his "hundred years" comment, and he reaffirmed the remark, excitedly declaring that U.S. troops could be in Iraq for "a thousand years" or "a million years," as far as he was concerned. The key matter, he explained, was whether they were being killed or not: "It's not American presence; it's American casualties." U.S. troops, he continued, are stationed in South Korea, Japan, Europe, Bosnia, and elsewhere as part of a "generally accepted policy of America's multilateralism." There's nothing wrong with Iraq being part of that policy, providing the government in Baghdad does not object."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/0...-_n_79662.html

mr gyptian, I know we probably never agree, but I back my shit up here as well as anyone. McCain clearly does not have his finger on the pulse of the electorate if he is making insane comments like that. Do you think that's what people in Iraq want to hear?

[enlosandes]

As an independent, I'd say you hit it on the head. I was pro-McCain over Bush the first time out, and would have voted for him over whatever lame look-alike Dem that ran that year...but he's lost my vote.

Dig back to the threads at the beginning of the war. I was strongly opposed to it because we couldn't afford it...not to mention that it would not affect the numbers of radical muslims in the world, and would not make us safer.

Frankly, those are still true. The war made a significant negative impact on our economy, we are even more hated by the radical muslims, and we have wasted countless millions on the department of bloatland security.

McCain wants to continue that. We can't afford it.

Well said from an independent. I hope the other I's are half as smart as you, then things might change.

[CUBUCK]

How about a million?

"After the event ended, I asked McCain about his "hundred years" comment, and he reaffirmed the remark, excitedly declaring that U.S. troops could be in Iraq for "a thousand years" or "a million years," as far as he was concerned. The key matter, he explained, was whether they were being killed or not: "It's not American presence; it's American casualties." U.S. troops, he continued, are stationed in South Korea, Japan, Europe, Bosnia, and elsewhere as part of a "generally accepted policy of America's multilateralism." There's nothing wrong with Iraq being part of that policy, providing the government in Baghdad does not object."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/0...-_n_79662.html

mr gyptian, I know we probably never agree, but I back my shit up here as well as anyone. McCain clearly does not have his finger on the pulse of the electorate if he is making insane comments like that. Do you think that's what people in Iraq want to hear?

Unless he is planning on being Prez for 10,000 years what does it matter anyway?

[grrrr]

Hell, he'll be lucky to live through his first four at his age.

The issue isn't whether we'll be occupying permanent bases in Iraq 60 years from now but whether we will continue to dump billions into pursuit of "victory, whatever that is" for the next four years.

[Adolf Allerbush]

Unless he is planning on being Prez for 10,000 years what does it matter anyway?

What about the troops that would still be there for 990,000 years after he leaves office? That is assuming he's planning on being in office for only 10,000 years.

[mr_gyptian]

How about a million?

"After the event ended, I asked McCain about his "hundred years" comment, and he reaffirmed the remark, excitedly declaring that U.S. troops could be in Iraq for "a thousand years" or "a million years," as far as he was concerned. The key matter, he explained, was whether they were being killed or not: "It's not American presence; it's American casualties." U.S. troops, he continued, are stationed in South Korea, Japan, Europe, Bosnia, and elsewhere as part of a "generally accepted policy of America's multilateralism." There's nothing wrong with Iraq being part of that policy, providing the government in Baghdad does not object."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/0...-_n_79662.html

mr gyptian, I know we probably never agree, but I back my shit up here as well as anyone. McCain clearly does not have his finger on the pulse of the electorate if he is making insane comments like that. Do you think that's what people in Iraq want to hear?

maybe next time note that the quotes are yours. that post isn't a transcript. secondly you stated earlier in the thread that he said 10,000 years. thirdly, he was being facetious to make the point that he is going to keep the troops in Iraq until the job is done.

while we're here. I may as well link one of my major problems with McCain's campaign against free speech. this in a nutshell is why his campaign finance reform is such a failure.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1202...ntent%253Dotep

this stinks. I guess it would have been less egregious had he not put his name next to Feingolds. but for chrissakes.

[willywhit]

whores !!!!

[RootSkier]

maybe next time note that the quotes are yours. that post isn't a transcript.

Bah, it is an article by David Corn from Mother Jones. The quotes are McCain's, as reported by a real journalist.

[mr_gyptian]

well it didn't take him long, but this bill has inexplicably made war cheap by comparison.


http://www.nationalledger.com/artman...72618845.shtml

It doesn't even bother to calculate how much it would cost the US to adhere to Kyoto. but I guess since the original signatories haven't bothered...

[BLOOD SWEAT STEEL]

I'd vote for Barack TWICE before I'd cast a vote for McCain.

[mr_gyptian]

Bah, it is an article by David Corn from Mother Jones. The quotes are McCain's, as reported by a real journalist.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf7HY..._in_nh_wo.html

this is the video from david corn's mojo post. calling it an article might be overstating things, a bit.

oddly the video doesn't support your thousands of years assertion.

but you back your shit up.

[enlosandes]

Hey you two, take it outside, we are trying to conduct a forum here.

[Adolf Allerbush]

Make fun of his mom.

[Jer]

What about the troops that would still be there for 990,000 years after he leaves office?

They'd be essentially immortal.
Sign me up!