Showing posts with label McCain. Show all posts
Showing posts with label McCain. Show all posts

Thursday, May 22, 2008

Opportunity knocks . . . in Omaha

Dear Barack Obama,

You don't know me, but I'm a registered Democrat here in Omaha (by God) Neb. I also have a little Internet music program, 3 Chords & the Truth, and this blog, all under the Revolution 21 umbrella.

Maybe you've seen the blog or listened to the show. Then again, maybe not. But that's not important now.

WHAT'S IMPORTANT is this article in
The New York Sun:

In the 2000 presidential race, Florida made the difference. In 2004, it was Ohio. This year could it all come down to just a single city, Omaha, Neb., and its suburbs?

That's a scenario being spun out by an amateur political prognosticator from New York, Sheldon Adler, who has a strong record of identifying the ultimate battlegrounds in national elections.

"It's possible. I don't think that's crazy," Mr. Adler said of the prospect that Nebraska's 2nd Congressional District, which includes Omaha and its environs, could become a tiebreaker in the November vote.

The possibility of such a decisive role for the Midwestern city exists because Nebraska allocates electoral votes by congressional district rather than on a statewide, winner-take-all basis. Maine is the only other state to use a district-by-district system.

Mr. Adler's Omaha scenario involves the likely Democratic nominee, Senator Obama of Illinois, taking every state Senator Kerry of Massachusetts won in 2004 with the exception of New Hampshire. Under this carefully chosen sequence of events, the presumptive Republican nominee, Senator McCain of Arizona, hangs on to all of President Bush's winning states from 2004, except for Iowa, Colorado and either New Mexico or Nevada. The result: a 269-269 tie, with 270 votes needed to win the presidency.

"It really may come down to, in that theoretical case, that one electoral vote," Mr. Adler said. With Maine expected to go entirely for the Democrats, the potential boon for Mr. Obama and the danger for the presumptive Republican nominee, Senator McCain, is that Omaha might turn blue.
WELL, SENATOR, it's looking not only like Nebraska might make a difference in November's election, but that the whole shootin' match might come down to who wins Omaha. And, as you well know, we Democrats are somewhat outnumbered here.

You're gonna need every single one of us at the polls . . . and a gaggle of liberal-leaning Republicans (like Mrs. Favog) and independents.

Now, I'm not originally from Omaha. I'm here because my wife is. But it's OK here, you know? Nice folks, happenin' city. Good times.

I know. You're asking, "So what if this clown isn't a native Omahan?" Actually, Barry -- You don't mind if I call you Barry, right? -- that's entirely the point.

Like I said, you just might need my vote. And my unfortunately Republican better half's vote. It's gonna be damn close. You becoming president -- or not -- well could hinge on my vote. Or on my (as I said) unfortunately Republican wife's.

Here's the deal, Cap. I'm from Louisiana, born and raised. That's the point, cher. Now, what can you do for me to ensure my vote -- and the missus' -- come November?

I AM NOT a greedy man, but I am going to be needin' a little lagniappe -- a little sumpin' sumpin' -- to be handing you this here election. Now, remember that I also can, by giving you my vote, banish those damn Republican SOBs to the nether regions of electoral politics for a generation or so.

And I would, in all likelihood, also be delivering my unfortunately Republican wife's vote to the "D" column, too. That's not nothing. Call it two for the price of one.
Mrs. Favog, I might add, is a strong-willed woman -- try to pull that typical crap on her that you do those sniveling soccer moms and she'll not only rip you a new one, she'll feed you your innards and make you like 'em.

So, how we gonna do some bidness here, Barry?

I tell you what -- and this is agin' my natural instincts and cultural proclivities, y'unnerstand -- I'll make you a sweetheart deal. Don't want a damn dollar for my vote . . . or for the better half's.

Don't want a car, neither. Nope, not a boat . . . or a new house . . . or one of those nice condos downtown.

What I want won't cost you or your campaign a dime. And it might make your conscience feel better than it has in ages. Interested?

AIIGHT, these are the brass tacks. What you can do for me to win my vote is cut out all this pro-choice, kill-the-babies, f***-the-family social-barbarian garbage.

When you use the power of government to encourage abortion . . . to enable and legitimize abortion, you're responsible for killing off our future. When you use the bludgeon of the courts -- and public policy -- to twist marriage and family relations into configurations they never were meant to endure, you are dealing a body blow not only to societal stability but also to the underpinnings of society itself.

When you persist in advocating crap like that insisted upon by your party's libertine-barbarian overseers, you'd just as well appoint Pol Pot as your Health and Human Services secretary and Genghis Khan as your head of Homeland Security. Why? Because if you're going to lay waste to an entire society, you'd just as well be as expedient about it as possible.

See, Barry, I'm the last New Deal Democrat standing. I'm for the little guy. That includes helpless babies in the womb, as well as beleaguered mamas and daddies trying to weather the cultural storms of our age and give their already-born children half a damn chance to live in a civil society.

What I'm looking for is a president who will advocate solutions to "crisis pregnancy" where nobody has to die in order for women to win. What I want in a president is somebody who realizes that freedom doesn't necessarily mean "Do whatever the hell you want, and damn the consequences."

I want a Democrat in the Oval Office who realizes that not only is our democracy a fragile thing, but also our entire civilized order. I want somebody smart enough to realize that you don't go futzing around with fragile things, relying on dumb luck to fend off catastrophe.

NOW, IT'S TRUE . . . I ain't gonna vote for that McCain fella. But that doesn't mean I'll vote for you.

And wouldn't it be a hell of a thing if you lost the White House by a vote or two? Right here in Omaha, Neb.

You gonna play ball wit me, podna? I'll give you till Nov. 3 to make up your mind.

HAT TIP: Leavenworth Street

Tuesday, April 29, 2008

Barack Obama as . . . The Soprano

This we may now assume: The next president of the United States won't know Shiite from Shinola.

ALL BECAUSE Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama -- obviously the innocent victim of some Looziana-style justice -- doesn't have the stones to deal with his Reverend Whack Job problem once and for all. And if how a man reacts when it all hits the fan shows us what he's made of -- and, indeed, where his convictions truly lie -- electing the doddering, ill-tempered Republican poster child for "senior moments" instead of yet another doctrinaire social-left Democrat probably will end up being a wash for the nation.

That, of course, is tragic in its own right. What can one expect, though, in a nation now politically riven between fascist-leaning, tinfoil-hat wearing GOP true believers and "progressive" Democrats who can muster true passion and outrage only when someone suggests women ought not have the "right" to murder their unborn offspring or, relatedly, suggests that f***ing is not an entitlement.

DO I UNDERSTAND this correctly?

Monday, not only did the Rev. Jeremiah Wright go before the National Press Club and defend some of the more offensive and crazy things he's said in the past, but then insinuated that Obama was disingenuous in the opprobrium he heaped upon his ex-pastor and spiritual mentor's rhetorical excesses.

And Wright couldn't leave bad enough alone, either. No, he had to stick the shiv in one of his own sheep's back as he threw Obama under the bus -- all the while clowning, mugging and mocking like some sort of ecclesiastical Huey Long in blackface. With security provided by the Nation of Islam -- that's Louis Farrakhan's Black Muslims to you and me.

Now, after all that, what you see in the above MSNBC video is all the fury Obama could muster?

Here's how The Associated Press reported the response from the junior U.S. senator from Illinois:

"I am outraged by the comments that were made and saddened by the spectacle that we saw yesterday," Obama told reporters at a news conference.

After weeks of staying out of the public eye while critics lambasted his sermons, Wright made three public appearances in four days to defend himself. The former pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago has been combative, providing colorful commentary and feeding the story Obama had hoped was dying down.

"This is not an attack on Jeremiah Wright," Wright told the Washington media Monday. "It has nothing to do with Senator Obama. It is an attack on the black church launched by people who know nothing about the African-American religious tradition."

Obama told reporters Tuesday that Wright's comments do not accurately portray the perspective of the black church.

"The person I saw yesterday was not the person that I met 20 years ago," Obama said of the man who married him.

Wright criticized the U.S. government as imperialist and stood by his suggestion that the United States invented the HIV virus as a means of genocide against minorities. "Based on this Tuskegee experiment and based on what has happened to Africans in this country, I believe our government is capable of doing anything," he said.

Obama said he heard that Wright had given "a performance" and when he watched tapes, he realized that it more than just a case of the former pastor defending himself.

"What became clear to me was that he was presenting a world view that contradicts what I am and what I stand for," Obama said.

In a highly publicized speech last month, Obama sharply condemned Wright's remarks. But he did not leave the church or repudiate the minister himself, who he said was like a family member.

On Tuesday, Obama sought to distance himself further from Wright.

"I gave him the benefit of the doubt in my speech in Philadelphia explaining that he's done enormous good. ... But when he states and then amplifies such ridiculous propositions as the U.S. government somehow being involved in AIDS. ... There are no excuses. They offended me. They rightly offend all Americans and they should be denounced."

"At a certain point if what somebody says contradicts what you believe so fundamentally and then he questions whether or not you believe it — in front of the National Press Club — then that's enough," Obama continued.

OBAMA SAID he was outraged, but his demeanor and reserve belied that notion. Instead, Obama just looked whipped.

He looked like a man who was despondent over a political setback, maybe even a fatal one. He looked like a man who'd just been "owned" in an argument. He looked like a man who just got his ass whipped.

That's the problem. His is the "outrage" of personal setback; it is not the outrage of someone who has seen something bigger than himself attacked and trashed. It is not the outrage of someone who fights for something dearer to himself than himself.

Lord knows it wasn't the righteous fury of a committed Christian who'd just seen the gospel cheapened and violated by the hateful, crazy antics of one of its ministers. Perhaps Obama might have summoned that kind of righteous anger if Rev. Wright had attacked "reproductive rights" instead.

AND ISN'T THAT just the problem with "progressives"? In what do they believe apart from "Do what thou wilt"? For what are they willing to die? For what do they live?

Sadly, for the Democrats and for America, it has come to this: Not only can't the Dems beat something with nothing, they can't even beat nothing -- and that's exactly what the Bush-McCain GOP represents -- with nothing.

Saturday, February 23, 2008

Imprudent . . . and un-Christian, too

Do you want to give
a man who wishes others dead the raw power to make it so?

From Agence France-Presse:
Presumptive Republican nominee John McCain Friday said he hoped Fidel Castro's resignation would be followed by his speedy demise, and rapped Democrat Barack Obama for offering talks with Cuba's next leader.

"Fidel Castro announced that he would not remain as president -- whatever that means," McCain said in Indianapolis.

"And I hope that he has the opportunity to meet Karl Marx very soon.

"But the point is, the point is that apparently he's trying to groom his brother Raul. My friends, Raul is worse in many respects than Fidel was."

In a formal written statement, McCain also took a shot at Obama, the Democratic front-runner who renewed his offer to speak to leaders of US foes without preconditions in a campaign debate with rival Hillary Clinton in Texas.

"So Raul Castro gets an audience with an American president, and all the prestige such a meeting confers, without having to release political prisoners, allow free media, political parties, and labor unions, or schedule internationally monitored free elections," McCain said.

"Senator Obama says he would meet Cuba's dictator without any such steps in the hope that talk will make things better for Cuba's oppressed people.

"Meet, talk, and hope may be a sound approach in a state legislature, but it is dangerously naive in international diplomacy where the oppressed look to America for hope and adversaries wish us ill."
I MEAN, my God! Isn't not wishing others dead something most people's mamas teach them by the time they're five?

I'm starting to think something is seriously wrong with John McCain. Seriously wrong.

This I do know: It would seem McCain is working overtime to be mean enough, deceitful enough, shady enough and just plain unhinged enough to make it possible for pro-life Catholics like myself to vote for Barack Obama with a clear conscience.

Lord have mercy on us all.

And on Fidel Castro, too.

Friday, February 22, 2008

Would you buy a used lobbyist from this man?

Would this be an example of Sen. John McCain being "imprudent," like what one of his friends mentioned to The New York Times in that story the GOP presidential candidate so hotly denies?

Newsweek reports:
A sworn deposition that Sen. John McCain gave in a lawsuit more than five years ago appears to contradict one part of a sweeping denial that his campaign issued this week to rebut a New York Times story about his ties to a Washington lobbyist.

On Wednesday night the Times published a story suggesting that McCain might have done legislative favors for the clients of the lobbyist, Vicki Iseman, who worked for the firm of Alcalde & Fay. One example it cited were two letters McCain wrote in late 1999 demanding that the Federal Communications Commission act on a long-stalled bid by one of Iseman's clients, Florida-based Paxson Communications, to purchase a Pittsburgh television station.

Just hours after the Times's story was posted, the McCain campaign issued a point-by-point response that depicted the letters as routine correspondence handled by his staff—and insisted that McCain had never even spoken with anybody from Paxson or Alcalde & Fay about the matter. "No representative of Paxson or Alcalde & Fay personally asked Senator McCain to send a letter to the FCC," the campaign said in a statement e-mailed to reporters.

But that flat claim seems to be contradicted by an impeccable source: McCain himself. "I was contacted by Mr. Paxson on this issue," McCain said in the Sept. 25, 2002, deposition obtained by NEWSWEEK. "He wanted their approval very bad for purposes of his business. I believe that Mr. Paxson had a legitimate complaint."

While McCain said "I don't recall" if he ever directly spoke to the firm's lobbyist about the issue—an apparent reference to Iseman, though she is not named—"I'm sure I spoke to [Paxson]." McCain agreed that his letters on behalf of Paxson, a campaign contributor, could "possibly be an appearance of corruption"—even though McCain denied doing anything improper.

McCain's subsequent letters to the FCC—coming around the same time that Paxson's firm was flying the senator to campaign events aboard its corporate jet and contributing $20,000 to his campaign—first surfaced as an issue during his unsuccessful 2000 presidential bid. William Kennard, the FCC chair at the time, described the sharply worded letters from McCain, then chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, as "highly unusual."

The issue erupted again this week when the New York Times reported that McCain's top campaign strategist at the time, John Weaver, was so concerned about what Iseman (who was representing Paxson) was saying about her access to McCain that he personally confronted her at a Washington restaurant and told her to stay away from the senator.
GIVING THE strong impression that you're on the take is imprudent. Galavanting around the country with a hot lobbyist not your wife is imprudent.

Vowing to keep our overstretched armed forces in a Middle Eastern cesspool for 50, 100 or 10,000 years "if need be" is imprudent. Flat-out asserting "there will be other wars" is imprudent, if for no other reason than tipping your hand in a high-stakes international poker game.

Unless you're bluffing. Which -- given the stakes and your opponents' willingness to call your bluff in the name of Allah -- is damned imprudent right there.

What's really imprudent, though, is telling bald-face lies to a press corps that more than has the means, the skill and the motivation to conclusively prove you're a damned liar tout de suite. If McCain, on the verge of securing the Republican nomination, is that contemptuous of the truth then follows up by completely underestimating the press corps, he is a man who has no business in the Oval Office.

We've had a gullet full of just the same -- with catastrophic results -- from its present occupant.

Thursday, February 21, 2008

You have to admire his taste in lobbyists

Presumptive GOP presidential nominee John McCain seems to be picking an interesting way to spark some Bill Clinton-style crossover appeal in the general election.

According to The New York Times, the old goat has been acting more than a little like Bubba Himself the past decade or so. Special-interest soft money to keep the "Straight Talk Express" rolling along, zipping from sea to shining sea on other people's dime, lobbyists . . . a hot chick on his arm who wasn't Mrs. McCain.

But who was a lobbyist. A special lobbyist.

Well, you do have to admire the senator's taste in lobbyists. He'll be ready to something on Day One:
Early in Senator John McCain’s first run for the White House eight years ago, waves of anxiety swept through his small circle of advisers.

A female lobbyist had been turning up with him at fund-raisers, visiting his offices and accompanying him on a client’s corporate jet. Convinced the relationship had become romantic, some of his top advisers intervened to protect the candidate from himself — instructing staff members to block the woman’s access, privately warning her away and repeatedly confronting him, several people involved in the campaign said on the condition of anonymity.

When news organizations reported that Mr. McCain had written letters to government regulators on behalf of the lobbyist’s client, the former campaign associates said, some aides feared for a time that attention would fall on her involvement.

Mr. McCain, 71, and the lobbyist, Vicki Iseman, 40, both say they never had a romantic relationship. But to his advisers, even the appearance of a close bond with a lobbyist whose clients often had business before the Senate committee Mr. McCain led threatened the story of redemption and rectitude that defined his political identity.

It had been just a decade since an official favor for a friend with regulatory problems had nearly ended Mr. McCain’s political career by ensnaring him in the Keating Five scandal. In the years that followed, he reinvented himself as the scourge of special interests, a crusader for stricter ethics and campaign finance rules, a man of honor chastened by a brush with shame.

But the concerns about Mr. McCain’s relationship with Ms. Iseman underscored an enduring paradox of his post-Keating career. Even as he has vowed to hold himself to the highest ethical standards, his confidence in his own integrity has sometimes seemed to blind him to potentially embarrassing conflicts of interest.

Mr. McCain promised, for example, never to fly directly from Washington to Phoenix, his hometown, to avoid the impression of self-interest because he sponsored a law that opened the route nearly a decade ago. But like other lawmakers, he often flew on the corporate jets of business executives seeking his support, including the media moguls Rupert Murdoch, Michael R. Bloomberg and Lowell W. Paxson, Ms. Iseman’s client. (Last year he voted to end the practice.)

Mr. McCain helped found a nonprofit group to promote his personal battle for tighter campaign finance rules. But he later resigned as its chairman after news reports disclosed that the group was tapping the same kinds of unlimited corporate contributions he opposed, including those from companies seeking his favor. He has criticized the cozy ties between lawmakers and lobbyists, but is relying on corporate lobbyists to donate their time running his presidential race and recently hired a lobbyist to run his Senate office.

“He is essentially an honorable person,” said William P. Cheshire, a friend of Mr. McCain who as editorial page editor of The Arizona Republic defended him during the Keating Five scandal. “But he can be imprudent.”
IMPRUDENT. Just the quality I'm looking for in a president.

Wednesday, February 13, 2008

It's a lock: Death a winner in '08

Great. It looks like it's pretty well official now.

The November election will be the Party of Abortion and Sex squaring off against the Party of Greed, Eternal War and Torture.

The U.S. Senate -- or was it the Roman Senate . . . I forget -- today voted largely along party lines to restrict the Central Intelligence Agency to interrogation techniques approved in the Army field manual. In other words, no waterboarding, no torture of any sort.

NOW THE BILL goes to Caesar President Bush who, as head of the Party of Greed, Eternal War and Torture, has vowed to veto it. Joining his fellow Greed, War & Torture senators in voting against the anti-torture legislation was presidential candidate John McCain, who had very nasty things done to him at the Hanoi Hilton many years ago.

(For those of you under 35, the Hanoi Hilton was not a five-star hotel. But it was in Vietnam.)

Meanwhile, after breaking from his fellow Abortion & Sex senators to vote in favor of torture, Nebraska's allegedly pro-life Ben Nelson was reported to be unavailable for comment due to overwhelming confusion.

The Associated Press has the depressing details:

Congress on Wednesday moved to prohibit the CIA from using waterboarding and other harsh interrogation methods on terror suspects, despite President Bush's threat to veto any measure that limits the agency's interrogation techniques.

The prohibition was contained in a bill authorizing intelligence activities for the current year, which the Senate approved on a 51-45 vote. It would restrict the CIA to the 19 interrogation techniques outlined in the Army field manual. That manual prohibits waterboarding, a method that makes an interrogation subject feel he is drowning.

The House had approved the measure in December. Wednesday's Senate vote set up a confrontation with the White House, where Bush has promised to veto any bill that restricts CIA questioning.

Arguing for such restrictions, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., said the use of harsh tactics would boomerang on the United States.

"Retaliation is the way of the world. What we do to others, they will do to us — but worse," Rockefeller said. "This debate is about more than legality. It is also about morality, the way we see ourselves ... and what we represent to the world."


Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, backed by Senate Republicans Olympia Snowe of Maine and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, inserted the provision in December into a bill providing guidelines for the running of U.S. intelligence agencies this year.

The 19 approved interrogation techniques in the military field manual include "good cop/bad cop," "false flag" — making prisoners think they are in the custody of another country — and the separation of a prisoner from other prisoners for up to 30 days at a time.

It prohibits military interrogators from hooding prisoners or putting duct tape across their eyes. They may not be stripped naked or forced to perform or mimic sexual acts. They may not be beaten, electrocuted, burned or otherwise physically hurt. They may not be subjected to hypothermia or mock executions. It does not allow food, water and medical treatment to be withheld, and dogs may not be used in any aspect of interrogation.

Republican presidential contender Sen. John McCain of Arizona, who was tortured as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, voted against the measure Wednesday.

LET ME ATTEMPT to get this straight. And, please . . . bear with me here.

Come November, as a Catholic who believes what his Church teaches, I am somehow expected to vote either:

* For the Party of Abortion and Sex in order to put an end to the Party of Greed, Endless War and Torture's relentless pursuit of . . . well . . . greed, endless war and torture.

* Or, alternatively, for the Party of Greed, Endless War and Torture in order to keep the Party of Abortion and Sex from getting its grubby, K-Y jelly-smeared hands on the Supreme Court, which someday is supposed to put an end to Roe v. Wade. But hasn't yet after 35 years, despite enough Republican appointments to supposedly have done that already.

UMM HMM. I think I get it now.

How about this instead? How about -- as a Catholic who believes what his Church teaches -- I tell both parties to go to hell.

And then spend my time trying to figure out how to survive the long, ugly decline of an empire that lost its soul, then lost its mind.

Tuesday, February 05, 2008

Poopy drawers. Butt cheek. Piss. DAMNATION!




THERE, now I'll never have to bear the horrible burden of Dr. James Dobson ever endorsing me for anything, anytime:
"I'm deeply disappointed the Republican Party seems poised to select a nominee who did not support a Constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage, who voted for embryonic stem cell research to kill nascent human beings, who opposed tax cuts that ended the marriage penalty, and who has little regard for freedom of speech, who organized the Gang of 14 to preserve filibusters, and has a legendary temper and often uses foul and obscene language.

"I am convinced Sen. McCain is not a conservative, and in fact, has gone out of his way to stick his thumb in the eyes of those who are. He has at times sounded more like a member of the other party. McCain actually considered leaving the GOP in 2001, and approached John Kerry about being Kerry's running mate in 2004. McCain also said publicly that Hillary Clinton would make a good president. Given these and many other concerns, a spoonful of sugar does not make the medicine go down. I cannot, and I will not vote for Sen. John McCain, as a matter of conscience."
NOBODY deserves to have that done to them -- a Dobson endorsement, that is. You could be looked upon as a power-hungry, misguided prig purely by involuntary association.

HAT TIP: Crunchy Con.

Wednesday, January 30, 2008

Four Songs: Something to be against

The world, you know, would be a boring and homogeneous place if we all were for the same things . . . had all the same opinions. It would be terrible, I think, to have nothing to argue about.

BUT THERE ARE some things -- some attitudes -- that it's really important that we all be against. There are some people who ought to be marginalized, because they so proudly proclaim what is the absolute worst of us.

Not surprisingly, a lot of the time, odious ideas and malignant sentiments surface in the heat of political battles. It's happening now, and that is what this episode of Four Songs is all about.

Listen. And think.

And in this corner . . . insanity

I stumbled across this piece of right-wing, paranoid sludge from some outfit by the name of Louisiana What's more troubling, however, is that I can't dismiss this as the fascist rantings -- and this is modern-day American fascism on display -- of some crackpot on the lunatic fringe, high as a kite on swamp gas.

No, this -- ahem -- stuff is far too "mainstream conservative" (or at least what passes for it nowadays) to be on the fringe of anything, except that of human decency.

What's really rich is that "Avman" can't see the total contradiction -- not to mention irony -- of being pissed at Sen. John McCain, the new frontrunner for the GOP presidential nomination, for not being willing to do the full Hitler in prosecuting the War on Terror and for not being pro-life enough.

Really, by "Avman's" own standards, we ought to send the ghost of Curtis LeMay to nuke Louisiana, because the War on Ignorance is nothing to screw around with. Look at this stuff. I mean, really:
Many of my conservative friends remain staunchly behind the war in Iraq and I am with them in such a cause. Like them, I understand that we fight this war today so that our children, our grandchildren, and so on won’t have to. We fight this war today because we want to live in peace.

But in his desire to be president, John McCain misunderstands the conservative position on Iraq. When John McCain stated that being in Iraq for 100 years would be “fine with me.” he grossly misunderstands why conservatives want our troops in Iraq to begin with. Being in Iraq for 100 years means we are committing our children, grand-children, and even their grand children to war that we fight… so our kids won’t have to. If our intentions are to be in Iraq for the next 100 years, let’s go ahead and get out of Iraq now.

I believe it is John McCain’s position to be in Iraq for another one hundred years because I don’t believe he’s willing to do what it takes to win in Iraq, especially when he’d rather trust and team up with the ACLU than to listen to our military advisors.. What I mean is that war isn’t pretty, it isn’t compassionate, it isn’t anything but death and destruction, the best war is won quickly. We can try to water it down by refusing to torture our enemies, as McCain would have us do, but if we aren’t willing to do certain things to our enemies, especially when our enemies are willing to do those very things to us, then we as a nation are not ready for war.

A compassionate war is a war that’s won quickly and our men and women serving are brought home as soon as it’s over, not over the course of a hundred years, as John McCain would have it go. I am for the war in Iraq, I’m for us doing what is necessary to annihilate our enemies. I’m for sending a message to the world that starting a war with the United States is a grave mistake.

And let’s not forget that John McCain is so pro military, that when Bill Clinton was down sizings the military, John McCain… Well, John McCain didn’t stand up against the downsizing. He was Missing In Action, no pun intended. Come to think of it, where was John McCain during the build up to the Iraq war, other than saying what an easy task it would be?


In 1999, John McCain stated very clearly that “In the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe vs. Wade, which would then force X number of women in American to undergo illegal and dangerous operations.”. Today, John McCain is clearly pro-life, finding this position recently while running for President. John McCain’s many statements on abortions and Roe V Wade also shows that he has a misunderstanding of what Roe V Wade would do if it were overturned. Though he now supports overturning Roe V Wade, he would keep abortion legal in cases of rape and incest, however, if Roe V Wade were to be overturned, that decision would fall into the hands of the fifty individual states, not in the hands of the President, 100 Senators, and the representatives.

So whether it’s been on issues regarding the national defense such as illegal immigration, on economic issues such as Bush’s tax cuts, or on social issues like gun ownership, abortion, and embryonic stem cell research, John McCain’s conservativism makes Hillary Clinton look like an ideal candidate instead of the bane of he Right.

While many of us in the Republican Party have gone into a fanatical anti Ron Paul rage, we’ve quickly surrendered our principles and are on the verge of electing a RINO as our Presidential nominee. Oh, don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying John McCain doesn’t deserve to win his party’s nomination, it’s just that his party is truly the Democrat party.
I THOUGHT conservatives sought to . . . well, conserve things like the rule of law and human dignity. You know, all that stuff like "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

The rule of American law, the moral law and international law says torture is wrong. Period. Likewise, the law -- a highly "conservative" concept, to be sure -- says neither America nor any other country gets to blow any other country to Kingdom Come just to show the world we're bad asses who aren't to be screwed with.

Obviously, some "conservatives" have forgotten all that.

So get out the brown shirts, boys. 'Cause some right-wing clown in Louisiana has just shown his -- and your -- true colors.