How to Beat a Rock Star: ‘Substance.’

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: willnotvoteobama @ 06/09/2008 11:20:55 AM

    How destructive to the U.S. economy would a Barack Obama presidency be?

    An exclusive Newsmax analysis warns: There could be a very rough time ahead.

    Beneath Obama's flowery rhetoric lies a dangerous economic plan that will wreak havoc on the American economy.

    Obama plans to return to the failed policies of high taxation coupled with an expansion of government spending.

    Worse, Obama says he is absolutely committed to almost doubling the capital gains rate ??? something he will easily accomplish with a Democrat Congress.

    In the coming months ??? when investors realize that Obama will raise the cap gains rate ??? there could be a stampede of asset sales as investors rush to take their profits now to avoid Obama's doubling of the tax rates next year.

    All of these issues and more are explored in Newsmax magazine's special report "Obamanomics ??? the Coming Tax-and-Spend Nightmare," by Wall Street Journal columnist John Fund.

    This Newsmax magazine special report gives Americans the first in-depth look at the Democratic presidential candidate's likely strategies ??? and how they will affect not just the larger economy, but your personal wealth as well.

    Indeed, Obama makes no bones about his plans to go on a tax rampage. Not only would he increase the capital-gains tax rate from 15 percent to as much as 28 percent, he wants to allow the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts to expire in 2010, which effectively raises taxes on Americans by tens of billions of dollars.

    He also wants to do away with the $102,000 FICA payroll tax cap, which means anyone making over $102,000 would pay an additional 7 percent in taxes on earned income.

    And the loan dividend tax rate George Bush implemented? Under President Obama it will be DOA!

    • Posted By: stopitnow@msn.com @ 06/09/2008 4:23:57 PM

      EAren't you forgetting that congress must pass all budgets. How is Obama going to raise taxes without congress approval. Open up your mind, the President has limited power, and congress is the check and balance. Think before you write.nter Your Comment

  • Posted By: mcg20 @ 06/08/2008 11:06:03 AM

    Driver of Wagons you obviously have zero military experience and your complete ignorance shows. McCain sponsors a bill that would be more beneficial for the military service and those who wish to make it a career. However supporting the troops by supporting a modern professional military obviously does not make sense to you or Obama, an organization he chose not to serve in. As an active duty member what the Dems don't understand is that the overwhelming majority of the military support McCain, he is one of us.

    • Posted By: raddave @ 06/09/2008 12:07:07 AM

      As a career member of the U.S. Army I do not feel McCain is one of "us" When it came time for me to re-enlist, the promises of money or a better GI bill did not influence my decision and it doesn't affect Soldiers' decision now. The GI Bill is for a soldier once he gets out of the military and if a soldier decides to get out. He should be rewarded for his service by being able to get a free college education, especially if he or she has served in Combat.

      • Posted By: mcg20 @ 06/09/2008 1:49:23 PM

        I applaud your service but the GI Bill is used as a retention tool. Having said that, it is your choice and one well deserved not to use this as a decision factor but most do. That is why the bill was not supported by McCain. What I said is that most in the military support him. Not all. It would be naive for me to think otherwise. What I have a hard time with is the people responding to this artice are uninformed on these particular issues about the GI Bill. You obviously are not and made a decision based on what you believe to be the fact.

        • Posted By: MG of IL @ 06/09/2008 4:05:13 PM

          Emcg20-

          Your comments regarding veteran benefits being offered to retain service. I'm not an expert but when Vietnam veterans left service they had educational benefits - some, like my husband were able to work full time, raise a family and get his engineering degree. Later we found that the federal benefits had a time period to be used - fortunately IL granted some payment when he finished his degree.

          The real point is that all veterans deserve some thanks, credit and benefits for what they have done - especially those in war zones.

  • Posted By: ped2008 @ 06/09/2008 12:57:06 AM

    Well, all the American people have witnessed of 8 terrible years of all kind of problem(s) such as terrorism, violent crime, poverty, inflation, recession and all the rest...We've been tired of the same old politician (politics),so we now stand up against the status quo--By taking a strong position behind George B. Worst and Joh Mackenia; I think that one's has to only low himself while the American people can afford another four years.So, let's change be in washington and America can afford another four worst one. In fact, with strong confidence I believe that Senator Obama is that change we've been dreaming of. Thanks and please vote for change in Washington and not the status quo.

    • Posted By: TruthandConsequence @ 06/09/2008 1:40:13 AM

      Yeah, to some people with a simple view, Bush is responsible for earthquakes, floods and every manner of disaster. At best, Obama IS the status quo. A partisan rock star, panderer, keeper of bad company, inflated ego, unimpressive judgment, two faced strategist and all around newby with a silky voice and a killer smile.

      • Posted By: AmSharper @ 06/09/2008 3:52:51 PM

        You are correct he is not responsible for floods but is responsible for leavening flood victims high and dry (oh not dry) for several days while he did nothing. He is responsible for lying us into a war and then brutally mismanaging the after effects of that attack. He is responsible for killing innovation in medical and scientific thru the slashing of scientific funding that would keep innovation at home. He is directly responsible for ballooning our debt and the crushing of our dollar. He has preceded over exponential gas prices increases and the top 5% of our wage earners getting richer while the rest of his nation did nod .. he may not be responsible for everything but do give the devil his due, he has done enough ......

    • Posted By: teiyali @ 06/09/2008 2:02:37 AM

      You can dream all you want to, Obama is going to show his true color once he steps his feet in the White House. He will lead this nation down like sheeps on the way to the slaughter house. I won't be suprise he has not yet made arrangement to meet Iranian leader to discuss the easiest way to destroy the United State, remember he is in the muslim clicks. I don't trust this man worth a rusted dime.

  • Posted By: Marc Berry @ 06/09/2008 3:36:20 PM

    Marc Berry Ripon Ca.
    Oh come on folks we all new Mrs Clinton had little chance to win the nomination if she did, I believe would have been slaughterd by the republicans. Evan Pres. bush was joking about the probabilit of sniper fire. Q. as a whole do you think the American public is ready to elect a woman to the White House?

  • Posted By: trucatdaddyu @ 06/09/2008 2:39:35 AM

    Macain also as a prisoner of war told them and said everything that the enemy want to hear and know to get free,that's not my hero he snitched to save his tail.why do you praise that as if it was a great thing that he did.Thats not patriotism thats saving his own rear.

    • Posted By: pramono @ 06/09/2008 6:51:25 AM

      There is no difference between Bush and Obama.
      Both came without any experience in International affairs, and both promised "Change" (remember I am a Uniter not a Divider), you can judge someone by the company he keeps, and Obamas company is alarming, they are leftists and arabists.
      This is a strong indication in what he really believes (not what his handlers tell him to chant).

      • Posted By: MG of IL @ 06/09/2008 2:58:36 PM

        Pramono-

        Aribists????????

        • Posted By: MG of IL @ 06/09/2008 3:29:26 PM

          Correction

          I meant "Arabists"??????

    • Posted By: FreedomIsNotFree @ 06/09/2008 2:50:12 AM

      what you are saying is a lie straight out of hell. You should read the reports of what freed John McCain, because you obviously have been watching too much of CNN(Communist News Network)

      • Posted By: PeopleGetReadyAChangeIsComing @ 06/09/2008 3:18:22 AM

        Wow, Obviously you have not read John McCains Book, where he tells you just what one of the commenters said, He Snitched to save his own behind and his father and grandfather were NOT happy with it. It's sad, very sad, that Whites and Blacks have a totally different way of seeing things and/or thinking. I've read most of the comments, and I must say, If I was not going to VOTE for Obama, after all of this MESS from bloggers, commentators, media, etc; I'll be standing at the polls as soon as it opens to cast my VOTE for OBAMA. If anyone is talking out the side of their mouth, kneck, and a few other unsavory places it is John McCain. Watch any of his news conferences where he speaks, he doesn't say anything, not ONE thing of substance that would make me a believer of giving him my vote. And Besides, I'd rather see Michelle as the first Lady then a DRUNK LIKE CINDY MCCAIN.

        • Posted By: pramono @ 06/09/2008 6:52:51 AM

          There is no difference between Bush and Obama.
          Both came without any experience in International affairs, and both promised "Change" (remember I am a Uniter not a Divider), you can judge someone by the company he keeps, and Obamas company is alarming, they are leftists and arabists.
          This is a strong indication in what he really believes (not what his handlers tell him to chant).

        • Posted By: Pearl Harbor @ 06/09/2008 5:39:21 AM

          Drunkard? Don't you drink?
          Have you never been drunk?
          Hypocrite.

      • Posted By: Pearl Harbor @ 06/09/2008 5:44:59 AM

        Try one or two. If not, give up. Who knows the next one will be a much better conversant. Not a bigot!

        Why bigot! Because you offered him the most complete source of information to know McCain more ? Besides lliving with him in one roof and he refused. He squandered his opportunity to validate what he knows at present which all come from the so-calle BUSH Script...... that's why bigot!

        He believes the all Bush Script... the same Script that catapulted Bush into power over McCaine.

        He is also an oxymoron., right Hates Bush so much but wil lstick the Bush Script that destroyed McCain 2000.

      • Posted By: PeopleGetReadyAChangeIsComing @ 06/09/2008 3:17:32 AM

        Wow, Obviously you have not read John McCains Book, where he tells you just what one of the commenters said, He Snitched to save his own behind and his father and grandfather were NOT happy with it. It's sad, very sad, that Whites and Blacks have a totally different way of seeing things and/or thinking. I've read most of the comments, and I must say, If I was not going to VOTE for Obama, after all of this MESS from bloggers, commentators, media, etc; I'll be standing at the polls as soon as it opens to cast my VOTE for OBAMA. If anyone is talking out the side of their mouth, kneck, and a few other unsavory places it is John McCain. Watch any of his news conferences where he speaks, he doesn't say anything, not ONE thing of substance that would make me a believer of giving him my vote. And Besides, I'd rather see Michelle as the first Lady then a DRUNK LIKE CINDY MCCAIN.

    • Posted By: arnoldray @ 06/09/2008 2:45:22 AM

      Right, where do you get this bullcrap of lies. You people will make up lies just to try to tarnish a good man. Any one knows that this is not true so quit trying to spread rumors. I hear obama is a drughead ***, is this true or just rumors?

  • Posted By: TruthandConsequence @ 06/09/2008 1:28:30 AM

    Why has the press not focused more on FBI Agent George Piro's account of his interrogations of Saddam after his capture? Saddam made it very clear that he wanted others to believe he had wmd's, it was a testosterone thing for Saddam, and, no doubt, conducted actions which made the intel services read that he had wmd's. Certainly, there was ample evidence to lend credence to the belief that Saddam had a program. Piro summed it up saying while Bush misread Saddam, Saddam misread Bush who would not tolerate Iraq having at its disposal a weapons program which Al-Qaeda or others might acquire access to. The rest is history and to our sense of safety, we now know that Iraq does not pose the threat it might have. Obama had no idea of what was at stake and plays politics with the popular mood of a people who do not like war.

    • Posted By: Pearl Harbor @ 06/09/2008 5:23:40 AM

      Because all your premises were wrong? Where in the whole world would a Congress take at least 6 months before deciding to war? And all the procedings are already out in the world market of information through internet, electronic feedds ,and so on.

      And the deicison makers are alrways in front of the TV seeking mass support? Those kind of SENATORS ARE LAMEDUCK?

      If our enemy has an ICBM? Before the start of the hearing to review facts, the enemy's missile has already wiped out all the senators.

      May I remind these Anti-War senators. who should have inhibited in the said committee due to open biases, that you are making a precedent hereI

      • Posted By: TruthandConsequence @ 06/09/2008 12:02:51 PM

        Silly argument. No one thought Saddam had an ICBM although his Scuds were of considerable concern as a regional threat. What was of great concern was whether Saddam had a resurgent nuclear program and the risk that terrorists may acquire access to fissile material. In the wake of 9/11 and nuclear threats from Al-Qaeda, we needed to act quickly to protect our borders and our people from any eventuality. There was multi-source intelligence which seemed to support, though not entirely without question, that Saddam was rebuilding a program. Piro''s interrogations support the idea that Saddam wanted us to know this and his fits and starts with inspectors did not instill confidence in the inspector program. BTW, FDR took two years to build a case for war against Germany, including illegal provocations against Germany and violations of our neutrality. He believed in it, America did not. With victory we are all praise - had we lost to Germany and Japan, FDR would have gone down in infamy.

        • Posted By: AmSharper @ 06/09/2008 3:29:05 PM


          The entire premise was a lie, wmd's'. The international community knew it, our senior administration knew it and elements of the media and government knew it. Frances loud objections were shouted down with the cry of freedom fries and the fact is compared to the first gulf war virtually no-one signed on because it was considered a fool???s errand. The collation of the willing was essentially paid off to sign up and most sent almost no troops if any. Any voice of opposition was shouted down as traitorous and in the light of the 911 attacks our blood still boiling we were frog marched to war. The fact is if there was evidence to support the claim there were WMD's there was a lot more to say there was not .. We were force fed this war with bulling and lies, it is time to call it for what it was no I can't be dixi chicked right out of society

  • Posted By: midwesternvalues @ 06/09/2008 1:35:34 AM

    I find it sad that anyone would "like" war as Truthandconsequence mentions. I do fear McCain may actually win, but he will win due to closeted racism not people buying his leadership. We will see how far we have really come as a people.

    • Posted By: TruthandConsequence @ 06/09/2008 1:48:07 AM

      midwestern - nobody likes war. Certainly, McCain does not and he knows more than Obama on the matter. But, McCain also understands the importance of winning a war once committed. Obama tapped the national restlessness over the war to gain political points by claiming he opposed the war from the "beginning" and to accuse Hillary for the decision she made. Obama was not even around for the beginning, he had neither access nor accountability to make a reasoned judgment on why Congress made the decision it did.

      • Posted By: MG of IL @ 06/09/2008 3:25:39 PM

        TruthandConsequence-

        And your point? We didn't WIN the Vietnam War and we're certainly not winning the war on terror or war in Iraq.

  • Posted By: mexed @ 06/09/2008 2:20:17 PM

    This 63 year old white male has seen a lot of presidents come and go. I see and hear nothing in McCain that convinces me that he has more substance than most in the political world. I see nothing in his life experience that convinces me that he has more substance. Time as a prisoner of war does not guarantee more substance or understanding of anything. I see a man who is steeped in Republican agenda, Republican economics, Republican views of the world as well as a man who does not have a vision of what the world is now and how we must respond now. His voting record does not inspire me nor does it suggest any substance greater than Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, George Bush, and the many others who vote the same as he. John McCain may be a nice man but I'm not voting again for someone whose foundational argument is fear. His age does not convince me of something positive but only makes me recall that Ronald Reagan was already suffering from memory loss as he neared the end of his term. John McCain has age but not some special wisdom and a greater likelihood to suffer memory loss while being president. He does not inspire me that the country will find a way to move forward. McCain will only take us back. Only Ron Paul of the Republicans had some good ideas but he was just too wacky. I am proud of the nomination of Barack. As far as race is concerned, I have not seen a 200 year history of great white male presidents. A few have been great. I don't care what race the man is. I do care that Barack has in his stated policies, agenda, and an approach to the world that is more substantial than anything John McCain has put forward. John McCain has lurched in many directions since he started. This alone says that he has no substance when it comes to his direction. Any candidate who is still trying to define himself and has now taken to defining himself as something other than the other candidate (and more substancial in that definition), and all that after his so-called long years of experience, should not get my vote or anyone else's vote. Get a clue America, this man has not yet figured out what he wants to do or who he is.

    • Posted By: Factarereal @ 06/09/2008 3:17:31 PM

      Thank you. You are very intelligent person. You are not like the republicans.

  • Posted By: Spacer @ 06/08/2008 10:32:45 PM

    Want to back up a little bit and talk about press coverage. One of the things that you mentioned in your speech in New Orleans was that you felt that the media hadn't recognized or had overlooked some of the attributes that Hillary Clinton had brought to the race. And I wondered???
    I did not [say that]???that was in prepared remarks, and I did not [say it]
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    What??? He DID say that, even if he didn't mean it. McCain seems to be admitting here that he's really just an empty suit that just reads words that somebody else writes for him?

    • Posted By: Nins @ 06/08/2008 10:53:42 PM

      Spacer, McCain IS an empty suit that just repeats words that somebody else writes for him. That is because when he speaks extemporaneously, it is so full of expletives that it would never pass the censors on prime time, and would make you grandmother blanch with shame.

      Obama on the other hand writes most of his own speeches, often gives them without a teleprompter, and is known as a polite and even tempered man.

      You might say, so what, Obama has better verbal skills and better manners, but does that matter? I would say that YES it does matter. Dubya Bush's lack of verbal skill has made America an international laughing stock. The rest of the world can't believe that we would chose an inarticulate figurehead, representing us on all levels, to be our mouthpeice in the international community.

      When McCain talks off the cuff without a script, he sounds a lot like Dubya. A little more intelligent, maybe, but he also curses a blue streak, which I always thought was a sign of an insecure, angry person. NOT very Presidential traits.

      Obama is cool and collected, always prepared and always a gentleman. A professional politician, who foreign leaders already look up to and admire. This is what America needs. If we want to regain our status as leader of the free world, we have to actually have a leader at the helm. Obama is that man.

      • Posted By: MG of IL @ 06/09/2008 3:15:40 PM

        Nins -

        Good thoughts and very true.

  • Posted By: Bahrainium @ 06/08/2008 11:25:53 PM

    If people wanted substance then they would have voted for Representative Ron Paul.

    Senator McCain will lose by a landslide. Why? Because he is an angry, old man. Who would want to listen to him on the news every day. This is the same reason why Senator Clinton lost to Senator Obama, who wants to listen to her every day. Americans are a Television culture, whoever is the most telegenic will win, plain and simple.

    These are the plain facts, and yes the truth hurts.

    Experience does not count in a Presidential election, 1 more electoral vote is what counts.

    I am an angry old white man myself, do I want to listen to McCain for 4 years? No way. I am voting for Senator Obama, if only he would get his act together and be a better role model for our young people and quit smoking.

    • Posted By: MG of IL @ 06/09/2008 2:50:31 PM

      Yes, along with many other seniors. I know if my Mom were still living she would be among them - against John McCain and for real change in Barack Obama.

    • Posted By: teiyali @ 06/09/2008 2:25:18 AM

      Go for it! you angry white man, you sound angry yourself to be posting, why can't you calm down and count, one, two, three, and if you are still angry, then get the heck off and stop posting your stupid remarks on this page.

      • Posted By: pilgrim101 @ 06/09/2008 11:40:48 AM

        gee, maybe you should heed your own advice and stay off the page too---

  • Posted By: 1TrueBlue @ 06/09/2008 2:29:29 AM

    McCain spent 5 years as a prisoner of war during the Vietnam war and never gave up being an American. Obama spent years listening to his mentor, Mr. Wright, about how damned this country is. To this day Obama finds no fault in his mentor's views so much so that he offered his own grandmother as the sacrificial lamb.

    So who would you like to be America's president?

    • Posted By: bcrawf2033 @ 06/09/2008 11:25:31 AM

      I don't find Senator McCain's involvement in the Keating Savings & Loan scandal that appealing. While I his respect service to our country, I served too. If he's suffering from any kind of PTSD from being a POW he's too unstable to be President. Senator Obama can surround himself with foreign policy advisors, military strategists, and financial wizards to being about positive change in our Nation. Former President Bill Clinton never served in the military and he made a fine Commander-in-Chief. Obama 08.

      • Posted By: MG of IL @ 06/09/2008 2:27:04 PM

        Yes, and in regards to Bill Clinton, there has always been controversy regarding him not serving - leaving the US as a Rhodes Scholar, etc. Many feel he dodged the draft and was actually fit to serve - only to use a loophole to avoid serving. No, it is not necssary to serve in the military to be a good leader - only a person with no thoughts of the horrible results of war could fight this cause - people should think about the long war in Vietnam, the way our Vietnam veterans have been treated (no honor like WW II Vets) and now we have all the Gulf War and soldiers of the wars going on now. We have a president who hids the horrible conditions in which they live, the terrible medical treatment they are given and the soldiers who are basically left with no help, financial support or medical treatment. We would be pretty stupid to support someone who supports GWB and his policies.

  • Posted By: Nins @ 06/09/2008 2:06:27 PM

    Concerned Ctzn, are you OUT OF YOUR MIND saying that "W" did nothing to defeat Roe vs. Wade? It has been the stated goal of the religious right to appoint conservative judges to overturn Roe vs. Wade for years. Bush is on board with this plan. Every single judge that Bush appointed to every single Federal bench that came open during his tenure was a right wing Christian conservative. The Democrats were stymied when the GOP controlled congress, and Bush got to appoint two right wing Supreme Court Justices.

    First Bush appointed John Roberts to replace Sandra Day O'Connor when she stepped down. When Chief Justice Wm. Rehnquist died in 2005, Bush appointed Roberts as Chief Justice, and then filled O'Connor's empty chair with Samuel Alito. Both Roberts and Alito are Catholic, and both are outspoken against abortion.

    Bush has appointed two of the nine Justices, including the Chief Justice. The current Supreme Court has been sharply divided on a number of high profile issues, including abortion rights, affirmative action, eminent domain, gay rights, the separation of church and state, sovereign immunity, and states' rights. The number of close votes in cases involving these areas suggests that a change of one or two key justices could completely shift the thinking of the Court on such issues.

    Right now there are four Justices who are elderly and will soon either retire or die. The next President will get to appoint at least two new Justices. If the next President is McCain, those two will both be conservative right wing Christians. McCain has publicly PROMISED to do this, and explicitly said that his goal is to overturn Roe vs. Wade.

    Most Americans, even most Republicans, value the separation of church and state. That clause is in our Constitution to protect us from exactly what is going on in America today! Allowing any religious group (especially a radical one) to control the interpretation and application of our laws in the highest court in the land is NOT democratic. Nor is it wise.

  • Posted By: mommareenie @ 06/09/2008 1:45:57 PM

    Mr. McCain is a nice enough man. He should just enjoy life and sit on his yacht with his wife and go fishing or something. We all knows he's a war hero, but being a war hero will not benefit the economy, bring home our men and woman from Iraq, or even lower gas prices. Go home Sen. McCain and admire your war hero pins. Leave the job of getting this country back on its feet to people who are aware of the economy and other important issues affecting this country. NO MORE BUSH ANTICS PLEASE.

  • Posted By: Izziemom @ 06/08/2008 12:04:44 PM

    please tell me how Obama differs than most other presidents in not having served in the military? McCain is an exception not the rule, and in Obama's case, there was no war to serve for. It's not as though he was a draft dodger like Clinton or Bush.

    • Posted By: mcg20 @ 06/08/2008 12:34:05 PM

      Izziemom.....Your knowledge of modern history is weak at best, with the exception of Bill Clinton every president since FDR has worn his countries uniform in either peace or war, active or reserve. I did not say anything about Obama having to serve during war. If he served in war or peace the fact is that he would have a much better idea as to how the culture is and the values that motivate and inspire us. Cutting and running only inspires the Left. BTW you can argue about Bush and his military background but the fact is he still served. He was not a draft dodger like Clinton.......and to prove that I am fair I consider Dan Quale, and Dick Cheney's lack of military service par with Bill Clintons

      • Posted By: joe_mama @ 06/08/2008 3:22:30 PM

        mcg20,

        your knowledge of modern history is equally weak. With the exception of Harry Truman, Bill Clinton, and George Bush II, the presidents of which you speak served in WWII. Truman served in WWI while Clinton received a deferment from Vietnam and Bush II served in the Texas National Guard.

        Dan Quayle served in the Indiana National Guard from 1969 - 1975.

        Furthermore, the mandatory draft was ended in 1973, when Obama was 13 years old.

        And, for the record:

        Wars we "won"
        WWII president: FDR (couldn't serve because of the whole wheelchair thing)
        WWI president: Woodrow Wilson (no military service0
        Civil War -- Lincoln (no military service)

        and the wars we lost (or tied):
        Vietnam: Nixon and LBJ (both served in WWII)
        Korea: Eisenhower (I hope you know his record)

        Conclusion:
        Military service HAS NOTHING to do with one's ability to be President and commander-in-chief in wartime or in peace.


        PS--Teddy Roosevelt is somewhat nebulous, as the Rough Riders were an irregular (i.e. volunteer) regiment that he created as an excuse to fight in the Spanish-American war. He, too, had no military experience, so he appointed a commander and made himself lieutenant colonel.

        sources: thewhitehouse.gov, wikipedia, woodrow wilsonhouse.org, theodoreroosevelt.org

        • Posted By: mcg20 @ 06/09/2008 1:40:23 PM

          Joe mama
          If my knowledge is weak than your attention to detail and abuility to comment on the correct subject is weaker. Next time read the whole passage. I was responding to some one saying that McCain would be the exception to the rule for having worn his countries uniform. What you are saying here has absolutley nothing to do with the other. Having served over 20 years active duty I can assure you I know more about this issue than you. Thanks for the info about the draft I would have never guessed. Way to jump the gun. Your whole passage only confirms my point.

  • Posted By: bcrawf2033 @ 06/09/2008 10:27:33 AM

    I have great respect for the military service of Senator John McCain because I'm a 20-year disabled veteran myself. However, we are in a different dispensation of time. The old ways don't work for everyone. It is time for CHANGE! New ideas and laying the groundwork for our children and grandchildren, who will run this Nation when Senator McCain and I are dead and gone. I can't believe that baby boomers who have grandchildren and great-grandchildren are unwilling to pass the baton and share our knowledge with the next generation. Senator Obama has the interest of his children, and America's children at heart. I think he's a decent human being and deserves a chance to lead America in to the future. As a woman, my empathy goes out to Senator Clinton. She ran a great race and paved the way for future women candidates. I'm so sorry that she and Senator Obama had to run at the same time. The world is excited and hopeful for the first time, in a long time, about the possibilities we can achieve. We have suffered painfully under Republican leadership, which at times has been no leadership at all. Whatever the Republican strategy against the Democrats, we will do everything within our power at the grassroots level to stop you from causing us further financial hardship and damage to our Nation. Vote for CHANGE! Obama 08

    • Posted By: Concerned Ctzn @ 06/09/2008 12:12:38 PM

      Re: "We have suffered painfully under Republican leadership, which at times has been no leadership at all...."

      My comment: Correction! We have suffered painfully under NEOCON (ARTIST) rule!!!!
      John's not a Neocon, he's a centrist. And moderate Repubs and Independents are going to be the folks that put JM in the W.H.

      • Posted By: Alvy @ 06/09/2008 1:37:08 PM

        The Neo's and the GOP are both equally responsible.
        You can't have one without the other.

      • Posted By: Nins @ 06/09/2008 12:53:35 PM

        I agree with you that the Neocons have fouled the nation, not the traditional Republicans. However, the GOP has been completely taken over by the Neocons, and no longer adheres to the old values of republic building.

        However, for you to say that McCain is a centrist is not true. McCain was first a Neocon, then he voted with the liberal Democrats, and now is a Neocon again. Never was he centrist.

        McCain started his career as part of the Christian right (there's a little-known fact). Once he landed in the soup as part of the Keating Five he positioned himself as a liberal and became a reformer for campaign finance in an effort to resurrect himself. For those of you who don't remember, the Keating scandal had to do with some shim sham corporations pumping money into McCain's coffers. So McCain became a reformer to shine up his tarnished image. That was his first departure from the right.

        Other, more serious betrayals of the right came later, after McCain got swift boated by Bush. The great Texas political machine laid McCain to waste, and McCain was mad as hell. He started voting against the Neocons and against Bush. He suddenly supported abortion rights, opposed the Bush tax cuts, co-sponsored a patient's bill of rights with Kennedy and Edwards, and got on the environmental bandwagon with John Kerry. My gosh, he even tried to crack down on gun shows in legislation he put forth with then-Democrat Joe Lieberman. And when Senator Jeffords of Vermont switched from Republican to Independent in an effort to counteract Bush's stranglehold on the Senate, McCain announced that he was considering becoming a Democrat, and went into a pow-wow with Senator Tom Daschle at his Sedona ranch. Did you know that John Kerry floated the idea of having McCain as his VP? This was to cement his status as a newly-minted Democrat.

        But instead of joining Kerry, McCain suddenly switched his affiliation, came out in support of Bush in '04, and jettisoned his liberal image. Suddenly, it was the "old" John McCain from the '80s back in the saddle, the neo-conservative, take no prisoners Creationist. Against abortion. For the war. The SAME man who opposed a Federal amendment banning gay marriage and openly met with gay groups now was pushing a gay marriage ban in Arizona. The SAME man who said in 1999 that he was opposed to overturning Roe vs. Wade, now suddenly in 2007 is promising that he will stack the deck in the Supreme Court with religious right judges and overturn Roe vs. Wade.

        You don't have to take my word for this. Watch news clips of McCain talking about the same issues in different years, which proves what I have written. Get on the Straight Talk Express and get it straight from the horse's mouth:

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEtZlR3zp4c
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ajm5JTf7jZs&feature=related

        • Posted By: Concerned Ctzn @ 06/09/2008 1:04:42 PM

          Re: "However, for you to say that McCain is a centrist is not true."

          And I suppose BO is not an ultra-liberal huh? hehehe

    • Posted By: hope-3 @ 06/09/2008 11:58:08 AM

      I hope McCain has learned the leason the the clintons had to learn the hard way,we voters are not stupid.We don't expect you to be perfect so if you make a mistake own-up to it.Don't try and play it off like it never happened because we will see right though it.Obama knew this from day one.

  • Posted By: Alvy @ 06/09/2008 1:14:04 PM

    Mc's gonna lose.

    Not knowing what was being said about oneself by strategist is more offensive than anything Mc accused Obama of doing. Being out-of-the-loop that you created, and not understanding the decision that you made with regard to the war is worse than quacked "inexperience and ambition" foibles.

    What is the overall troop moral? Do they know the plan or what they are fighting for? What is the outline of this great plan, and based on "your numbers" how long will it take to win this war? 2013? Why don't the Generals that Obama should be talking to say this? Why do they say "I don't know"?

    Mc's lobbyists or beer-handlers don't have that information, and neither does Mc. With 29 years in public office - his accomplishments are two more than the six-year guy - and Mc has no actual dirty hands-on. Mc should be careful because if you're grading on a curve, he gets a "D". And being a hostage almost 40 years ago doesn't qualify you for prez. And Rambo didn't talk.

  • Posted By: mosherd @ 06/09/2008 1:08:18 PM

    Fact Check

    NW: Want to back up a little bit and talk about press coverage. One of the things that you mentioned in your speech in New Orleans was that you felt that the media hadn't recognized or had overlooked some of the attributes that Hillary Clinton had brought to the race. And I wondered???

    Sen. McCain: I did not [say that]???that was in prepared remarks, and I did not [say it]???I'm not in the business of commenting on the press and their coverage or not coverage ??? My supporters and friends can comment all they want about the press coverage, and that's their right. They're American citizens. I will not because I believe it's not a profitable enterprise for me to do so. I can't change any of the coverage that I know of except to just campaign as hard as I can and try to seek the approval of the majority of my fellow citizens.
    It is something that the American people will judge, and I won't complain about it and I won't praise it. I will just run my campaign and hope that the American people will make a judgment.

    ****Politico has just pointed out that this statement by Sen. McCain is false. He did include the discussed remarks in his actual speech.

  • Posted By: mosherd @ 06/09/2008 1:05:00 PM

    Fact Check

    NW: Want to back up a little bit and talk about press coverage. One of the things that you mentioned in your speech in New Orleans was that you felt that the media hadn't recognized or had overlooked some of the attributes that Hillary Clinton had brought to the race. And I wondered???

    Sen. McCain: I did not [say that]???that was in prepared remarks, and I did not [say it]???I'm not in the business of commenting on the press and their coverage or not coverage ??? My supporters and friends can comment all they want about the press coverage, and that's their right. They're American citizens. I will not because I believe it's not a profitable enterprise for me to do so. I can't change any of the coverage that I know of except to just campaign as hard as I can and try to seek the approval of the majority of my fellow citizens.

    It is something that the American people will judge, and I won't complain about it and I won't praise it. I will just run my campaign and hope that the American people will make a judgment.

    ----Politico just pointed out that this statement by Sen. McCain is absolutely false. He did not leave that part out of his speech.

  • Posted By: Pia1981 @ 06/09/2008 1:01:08 PM

    Obama has substance. Where is McCain btw, is he still in the presidential run? For him to have substance, he should at least make an occasional appearance. I'm not offending him.... I do respect him for his military service.

  • Posted By: papa_be_good @ 06/09/2008 1:24:10 AM

    John McCain will be the next president i am 70 years old and never in my life voted for a republican and so is all of my family and kin but we are all voting for McCain because Obama has no substance I saw somewhere where it was said he was like a donut real Sweet but no substance and that is the truth he is a disaster waiting to happen to this great country.

    • Posted By: Nell215 @ 06/09/2008 1:00:18 PM

      Considering the fact that you and he both don't have much longer to live on this planet and in the country it doesn't surprise me that you don't care about the next generation that has to deal with all this crap from the GOP. We do need change. America needs to realize that us under 40 are going to guide and lead. Leave your old, racists views where they belong. In the past!

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse