For general discussion and debate. Possible talking point: Are social Conservatives warming to McCain?
For a campaign that Republican critics have called ill-managed, disorganized and message-challenged, the Arizona senator's organization has, from all outward appearances, been doing things right in its appeals to evangelicals and other religious conservatives. In the past week, Mr. McCain won over a major group of social conservatives, thanks to personal appeals, and the campaign has made personnel moves appealing to religious voters. In Denver last week, a meeting of nearly 100 religious conservative leaders and activists resulted in about 75 of them deciding Mr. McCain is their man.
What say you NewsBusters? Is the Washington Times right about this? If so, how big a deal is it?
Comments Policy
And now, today's Shrub
July 7, 2008 - 10:06 ET by Roger the ShrubberAnd now, today's Shrub Report®:
Ooooo, Newsbusters looks all fancy now!
Sadly, it was 28 years ago today that Led Zep played their last show with their original lineup.
Socialism thrives in the UK. Oh, it sure does.
Woohoo! It's Storm Porn season!
ACORN busted again?
The EU is getting their collective crap together on immigration. Like with socialized healthcare, energy, and the Middle East, the Democrat(ic)s are going in the opposite direction of their modeler.
The pussification of our kids continues.
Über-Patriot Dick Durbin accuses Republicans of not supporting the troops. *snicker*
Can we please now move on off of this canard?
Sit back and enjoy the chewy goodness of the DNC Convention Follies.
Don't be expecting the UN to be capable of stopping their peacekeepers from raping and pillaging. That's just crazy talk!
Today's Religion of Peace Update. And another. Speaking of the Religion of Tolerence, is that John Kerry? And, finally, do not dare become "phone pals".
Whoops!
Shrivelled Balloon
July 7, 2008 - 11:22 ET by Dr_LibertyHad not Led Zep played their last concert 28 years ago, we would all be subjected to a bunch of wrinkled wrockers shuffling around on stage playing "oldies" and new songs that nobody has heard of, all the while reminding us to reduce our carbon footprint.
Evidence for the prosecution: Sting, Bruce Springsteen and Coldplay (they are way past their prime).
<insert witty signature here>
A part of me wants to argue
July 7, 2008 - 11:37 ET by Roger the ShrubberA part of me wants to argue with you about that, but the other part of me remembers that Foghat plays the county fair circuit.....
Hey!
July 7, 2008 - 12:15 ET by Dr_LibertyDon't denigrate the county fairs! That is the only place I see my live music!
And you should take solace in the fact that Motorhead* has recently made a resurgence thanks to a mention in an AT&T commercial.
* Please to insert the two little dots on the second "o" as you wish. I only prefer the American spelling of Motorhead.
<insert witty signature here>
If you omit the umlats,
July 7, 2008 - 12:20 ET by Roger the ShrubberIf you omit the umlats, Lemmy will come and make you touch his moles!
Shrivelled Baloons? Hmmmmm.....
July 7, 2008 - 21:24 ET by R D HelmFifteen days hence, I will be attending what may be the next to last performance ever by a band whose origins date back to 1968.
Past their prime?
Hardly.
And that led straight into this.
(And yes, that is Jerry Stiller on the vid screen at the beginning.)
The truth is insensitive. - Neal Boortz
And P.S.
July 7, 2008 - 11:26 ET by Dr_LibertyThanks for this quick list of news items.
The ACORN story was amazing, albeit predictable. I can't figure out why these people just don't change their name. They seem like the "gang that can't shoot straight" when it comes to voter registration fraud. Wherever ACORN appears, there is usually a pile of glowing evidence that registrations are bogus.
The one nice thing was that the Penn Gazette has a number to contact at the bottom of the story for people to report voter fraud -- now that is what a responsible newspaper should be doing!
<insert witty signature here>
Laughable
July 7, 2008 - 12:24 ET by IgnatzJFahrquarAs usual with anything ACORN gets invloved with. My favorite:
" ACORN National President Maude Hurd said in a statement
that she did not believe the former employee in question
sought to register ineligible people."
No, they were just doing it for sh*ts & giggles. Give me a break. A few "mistakes" can be expected; between 100 and 150 is another story.
"All generalizations are false, including this one.” Mark Twain
Hurricane Bertha 1996 version
July 7, 2008 - 12:32 ET by ricklailWe are just a few days shorts, July 12th 1996, of the anniversary of another Hurricane Bertha. We had just moved here in March of 1996. Bertha was our first. I was scared to death. It blew down 2 trees in my yard. It tore up the docks at the Shearton and Ramada Inn in New Bern. Boats were washed up in the streets and sunk. My wife was wanting to move back to the foothills. Little did we know that day that the worst, Fran, would come along in about 6 weeks. Twelve years later I am a veteran of the hurricanes. Come on Bertha take your best shot again.
“A debate is a conflict which clarifies a position. A dialogue is a conversation which compromises a position.” –John E. Ashbrook, The New Neutralism II, P. 7
Looks like a miss
July 7, 2008 - 12:47 ET by IgnatzJFahrquarhttp://www.nhc.noaa....
Unless you live in Bermuda.
Like I posted below, the forecasters are dumb-founded and the MSM will need to look for more death and destruction elsewhere.
"All generalizations are false, including this one.” Mark Twain
Global Warming "Leadership"
July 7, 2008 - 10:09 ET by CaringwhiteguyIn a step to combat the New York Times for "leadership" on Global Warming Kook-Hysteria NBC Universal has acquired the Weather Channel. http://www.latimes.c...
It shouldn't be too long before NBC changes the Weather Channel logo from blue to green.
We're all warming to McCain
July 7, 2008 - 11:17 ET by Dr_LibertyNow thanks to daily climate change and disaster reports, we will all be globally warming to McCain.
<insert witty signature here>
Last night's 60 Minutes....
July 7, 2008 - 10:27 ET by Prester John....had a segment on Douglas Feith and his book on the decision to go to war in Iraq.
The 60 Minutes interviewer said that Bush and company said that Iraq was an "imminent" threat. In response Feith said the administration didn't say that. 60 Minutes then ran a series of soundbites from Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Powell to prove its point. The only problem was that in none of the sound bites did anyone say that Iraq was an imminent threat.
As all NB groupies know, it was Democrat Senators Edwards, Rockefeller et al that said that Iraq was an imminent threat, something that 60 Minutes didn't bother to point out.
Oopsie.
Pretty darn close Prestor
July 7, 2008 - 10:30 ET by shawn228Pretty darn close Prestor John
Some folks can dish it out but cannot take it
Close, but no cigar
July 7, 2008 - 10:39 ET by Prester JohnRockefeller and Edwards were the ones who said Iraq was an "imminent" threat.
Somehow 60 Minutes couldn't be bothered to point that out.
PJ
July 7, 2008 - 10:43 ET by shawn228I guess it is sort of what the word is is:-)
Some folks can dish it out but cannot take it
Not really
July 7, 2008 - 10:56 ET by Prester JohnIf you read my initial post you will see that I was pointing out that 60 Minutes, supposedly the premier investigative news show in America, accused the administration of saying that Iraq posed an "imminent" threat and the proceeded to show video clips from the 4 highest officials in the administration, none of whom said that Iraq was an "imminent" threat.
Do they even bother looking at what they put together? No one at CBS had the brains to point out that "hey guys, isn't it kinda weird that we're going to show video clips to prove a point when in fact the clips don't prove the point we're trying to make"?
And again, if these people are really the "objective" journalists that they all claim to be, why didn't they point out that it was Rockefeller and Edwards (at a minimum) who said that Iraq posed an "imminent" threat?
A stretch. Close is not
July 7, 2008 - 10:40 ET by bassndudeA stretch. Close is not what I heard. I heard a "...I would not be so sure..." Nice try tho, but still, only the media and the dems classified Saddam as an immidate threat. They are the only quotes you will find.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Did you listen to the whole thing bass?
July 7, 2008 - 10:47 ET by shawn228".....no terror state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than Sadamm Hussein and Iraq"
I'm not going to argue with you about the Dems, because they are just as responsible as the republicans.
Some folks can dish it out but cannot take it
Yes, but who said
July 7, 2008 - 10:48 ET by bassndudeYes, but who said that?
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Donald Rumsfeld, Bass. If
July 7, 2008 - 10:50 ET by shawn228Donald Rumsfeld, Bass. If you listened to the whole clip. Again. I blame Dems for getting in this war as well. A position I never flip flopped on.
Some folks can dish it out but cannot take it
From teh Marriam Webster
July 7, 2008 - 11:16 ET by Dan The Man 2From teh Marriam Webster Dictionary - two different ideas.
Imminent - ready to take place; especially : hanging threateningly over one's head <was in imminent danger of being run over
Immediate - 1 a: acting or being without the intervention of another object, cause, or agency : direct <the immediate cause of death> b: present to the mind independently of other states or factors <immediate awareness> c: involving or derived from a single premise <an immediate inference>
2: being next in line or relation <the immediate family>
3 a: existing without intervening space or substance <brought into immediate contact> b: being near at hand <the immediate neighborhood>
4 a: occurring, acting, or accomplished without loss or interval of time : instant <an immediate need> b (1): near to or related to the present <the immediate past> (2): of or relating to the here and now : current <too busy with immediate concerns to worry about the future>
5: directly touching or concerning a person or thing <the child's immediate world is the classroom>
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
Shawn: 1) Schiffer
July 7, 2008 - 12:45 ET by stratmanShawn:
1) Schiffer incorrectly states there were no WMD's in Iraq. That is categorically false. The WMD's found may not have been vast quantities or of sufficient menace to some, but WMD's were found.
2) Schiffer uses the words "immediate threat". Following the "gotcha" game setup about anyone in the Administration saying "immediate threat". Then sandbagger Friedman, chomping on the bit to get his supposed coup de grace quote such that he uses his finger to follow the typed words like a child learning to read, says
"Close to immenent" - Friedman's opinion, NOT Rumsfeld's words. Sounds pretty to Liberals but isn't true.
"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people..." per Friedman quoting Rumsfeld again. Grammatically this means that of all the enemies in the world, the nuclear threat from Iraq posed the greater and more immediate threat, BUT that does not mean it was an immenent threat. An example - you have two daughters, one 4 years old and the other 8. The threat of teenage pregnancy is a real possibility for any parent with daughters. The threat of that teen pregnancy is more immediate in the 8 year old due to her being nearer to puberty, yet, the threat is still years away and neither immediate nor immenent. The sentence is all about semantics which Schiffer and Friedman, and you, have hijacked for their bias. It is the word parsing game of Clinton's "whatever is is" again.
RRAM Tough!
And immediate is not
July 7, 2008 - 10:53 ET by bassndudeAnd immediate is not imminent.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Imminent threat
July 7, 2008 - 11:58 ET by KC MulvilleThe difference is crucial to understanding the entire Bush program, including the "Axis of Evil" idea.
In the past, under the just war theory, a country was justified in the use of force to defend itself, but only under certain conditions. One of those conditions was that the enemy posed an imminent threat. But the idea of "imminent threat" came from a time when you could detect when an actual attack was about to happen. It didn't matter whether you hated the enemy, or even if they were plainly evil. You couldn't start fighting unless you had clear evidence that the enemy was already starting his own attack. In other words, the idea of "imminent" threat only makes sense when you can see the actual attack developing. The just war theory only allows you to start fighting when you see the enemy starting the actual attack.
But that was the lesson of 9/11. With terrorists, attacks happen instantaneously. There's nothing to see develop.
And so that leaves you with two choices: (1) Wait to be attacked, or (2) drop "imminent" from the requirements of a justified defense. Bush's argument has always been that in the modern terrorist age, you certainly have to justify the belief that an attack is being prepared, but you don't have to wait for any whistle. You can't just attack randomly. You certainly have to give clear reason why you believe your opponent intends to attack you. (Thus, all the United Nations resolutions, and Saddam's refusal to comply with any of them, provided the clear reason for our invasion.) But it would be insane to wait for Saddam, or one of the terrorist cells he funded, to actually launch an attack before we defended ourselves.
KC Mulville
July 7, 2008 - 12:13 ET by rammingspeedRe: Your post about imminent threat.
I agree wholeheartedly. This is a totally new age of weaponry and the stealth one can use to launch an attack, seemingly from nowhere. That's why we went into Iraq in 2003: There was enough probable cause, developed over a twenty year time period, to believe Hussein was hiding WMDs. His 16 refusals to allow UN inspectors to inspect and his throwing them out in 1998, while President Clinton stood by, and the fact that 9/11 finally happened, gave Bush the imperative to figure out the WMD situation once and for all.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend, and Hussein and Iran would have acted in concert to kill Americans, especially Americans on their home soil, in a heartbeat. Making deals with the devil (your sworn, mortal enemy) to get what you want is among of the oldest of sins.
Shawn, is this the threat
July 7, 2008 - 10:45 ET by bassndudeShawn, is this the threat quote you were looking for?
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
FOX News altered pictures
July 7, 2008 - 10:26 ET by NewsbusterbrownIs this true or is the MSM taking things out of context as usual?
BTW, the website looks great!
“There are no easy answers' but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right.” - Ronald Reagan (1964 Republican Convention)
Inflation "protection"
July 7, 2008 - 10:32 ET by sarcasmoObese-government style.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Easley on Jesse Helms
July 7, 2008 - 10:40 ET by ricklailThis is a bit off topic but I have been absent for a few days. This is the comments that Easley made about Jesse Helms:
"At the height of his power, he fought for the values of the old confederacy. He resisted the new South. He resisted the opportunity to fight for a more perfect union."
All of you from NC know how arrogant Easley is. He thinks he is royality. The joke around here is that the Tryon Palace is being readied for him and his wife once he leaves office. (Tryon Palace was the residence of Royal Governor Tryon during the British rule. )
“A debate is a conflict which clarifies a position. A dialogue is a conversation which compromises a position.” –John E. Ashbrook, The New Neutralism II, P. 7
Rick, I heard Weasly's
July 7, 2008 - 10:50 ET by SemperrightRick,
I heard Weasly's clone (Mayor Meeker) on the radio this morning, He was asked about Sen. Helms and he just could not bring himself to say anything nice. a lot of "Well' if you agree with him or not , you knew where you stand"
Pathetic,
"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference.
The MARINES don't have that problem."
President Ronald Reagan - 1985
Are social Conservatives warming to McCain?
July 7, 2008 - 10:45 ET by GothampcTo me this article is a bit of a desperate appeal. We're still not seeing any leading ministers support him. Conservative Protestant Evangelicals still remember McCain throwing John Hagee under the bus. If I were McCain's people, I'd try and get Paul Crouch's endorsement. At least try to get an on-air interview between McCain and Crouch.
Washington Watch
July 7, 2008 - 11:00 ET by River CityI like the new look. Thanks for all the work you've done.
FYI: I don't want to promote another blog on this site but did want to mention that Washington Watch, the website for people like me who don't want to do their own research into new bills and laws congress is proposing, has started a blog. They do the work so I don't have to.
re. the proposed topic: John McCain still does not appeal to me as a conservative. The people who pushed him on us are trying to convince us he is the only game in town so we have to vote for him. JMO
"Money is the scourge of the men who attempt to reverse the law of causality--the men who seek to replace the mind by seizing the products of the mind." Ayn Rand
I don't see the separation
July 7, 2008 - 11:20 ET by robert108I don't see the separation the MSM tries to create between "social" and "fiscal" conservatives; if you are fiscally conservative, how can you approve the spending on social programs and for special-interest groups? Conservatives support limited govt, like it says in the Constitution.
That he got Bauer on board
July 7, 2008 - 11:33 ET by dscottThat he got Bauer on board is impressive. One must ask the question if Bauer and others are reading into McCain's character being self deceived by their own hopes or is there some real substance which they have divined.
But the problem still remains: McCain a real man. Once in office, he will not be pushed around by anyone or put his finger to the wind." This attribute while it has it's positive aspect as far as following ideals is also his weakness, just like Nixion he can be stubborn. There is a fine line between Stubborn and Resolute. Once in office will he mule headedly push amnesty for illegals thus putting more Americans out of work or keeping citizens from jobs via the H-1B visas, will he compromise on the AGW nonsense and continue to allow Dems to constrain the nation's energy supply thus keeping up prices in the misguided belief of the alternate energy panacea?
Until McCain get's on track here with these two issues, this all talk and no action. With McCain, once he signs onto a premise he does stick with it...but the question is what premise?
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
"Are social Conservatives
July 7, 2008 - 11:40 ET by Chris Norman"Are social Conservatives warming to McCain?"
If they are, it's probably like with some other conservatives who had vowed not to vote for McCain - as they begin to realize just how awful an Obama presidency would be, they'll turn to McCain - not out of love, just as an "anybody but Obama" alternative.
Are these the same "social
July 7, 2008 - 11:57 ET by dscottAre these the same "social conservatives" the ones who bought into the AGW nonsense, the victimhood of the earth? Just because one is religious does not make one a "conservative". There are many very liberal religious people like Rev Wright, Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton who fly under a false flag passing themselves off as being "Christian" when in fact their rhetoric would be condemned as self righeousness by Christ Himself as He did the Pharisees and Saducies of old. Self Righteousness is based on the condemnation of others in a relativistic manner in order to justify one's own righteousness. Victimhood is just self righteousness in a clever disguise.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
dscott
July 7, 2008 - 12:01 ET by rammingspeedRe: "Are these the same social conservatives...?"
Brilliant post. One of the best I've read anywhere.
Kudos!
Are these the same "social conservatives" the ones ..."
July 7, 2008 - 12:11 ET by Chris Normandscott,
I don't know. I was just attempting to answer the questioned as framed. However, when someone says "social conservatives" it usually means just that. If they meant Jesse Jackson, etc., they would have said "social liberals". I didn't read anywhere in here that all people who are religious are conservative - rather they used the specific designation: "social conservative". By the way, not all social conservatives are necessarily religious, either, despite the general use of the term to describe conservatives with strong religious values they apply to politics.
Social Liberal???? Never
July 7, 2008 - 12:29 ET by dscottSocial Liberal???? Never heard of that term before. I would think most liberals would say such a term is redundant.
The Washington Times being a little right of center, one would hope they would be careful and more exacting of their terminology. However, I am wary of the label "social conservative" since church/religious based initiatives could be very sloppily lumped together without some critical distinctions. Our definition of social conservative is very different than that of liberals. As an extreme example, this would allow for the inappropriate moral equivalence of Hamas recruiting drives using charitable activities in Palestine. If you will remember, the left is very fond of making moral equivalences and has made the rediculus assertion of Christian terrorism (a certain CNN female foreign correspondent). My point is, the are certain churches who have bought into the AGW hoax because they wanted a CHANGE from the tired old saw of man's redemption and salvation to that of the Earth's redemption and salvation. It's called the Gaia Cult.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
I see what you're driving
July 7, 2008 - 12:46 ET by Chris NormanI see what you're driving at, but don't quite understand your vehemence about this. For the sake of space, there's got to be some kind of short designation so readers will know who they are talking about without using several paragraphs to describe them with specificity to the nth degree. Without taking away from your point, I really think you need to cut them a little slack here.
Now you know why pithy
July 7, 2008 - 13:21 ET by dscottNow you know why pithy slogans are so effective, it takes 10 times as many words disassemble an assertion. By the time you have thoroughly debunked one, 10 more have already been tossed into the public consciousness, unchallenged they insidiously become absorbed as truth. E.g. public transportation is fuel efficient, the US has no energy policy, or ethanol is good for the environment.
Don't misinterpret my vigilance as vehemence, it is by no means meant as a negative comment.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
There is Nothing New Under the Sun
July 7, 2008 - 12:47 ET by bradbenj5952Fullfilling Romans 1:25 “Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the
creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.”
"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive." - C.S. Lewis
How can one respond to
July 7, 2008 - 13:16 ET by Chris NormanHow can one respond to that?
dscott
July 7, 2008 - 16:03 ET by Noel SheppardDan,
You've never heard of a social liberal? Are you being cheeky?
A social liberal is someone that is anti-death penalty, pro-abortion, and anti-gun rights. Hence, liberal on social issues. As you move to the right on this scale, you normally gravitate towards capital punishment, pro-Life, and pro-NRA.
One would also typify social liberals as being for the expansion of entitlement programs such as SS, Medicare, welfare, etc., while social conservatives would like to see these reduced or totally eliminated.
Lately, the term social conservative has been a bit bastardized to refer exclusively to people of faith. From a political perspective, this isn't accurate. ns
Thanks Noel. You just
July 7, 2008 - 16:24 ET by Chris NormanThanks Noel. You just articulated what I thrashed around, trying to say. You also demonstrated why you write professionally and I can't.
McNotObama '08
Chris
July 7, 2008 - 17:43 ET by Noel SheppardChris,
Yeah, but you came up with McNotObama, which I friggin' love! ns
Thanks, but the best
July 7, 2008 - 18:03 ET by Chris NormanThanks, but the best campaign idea of the year (as far as I'm concerned) was suggested several comments below by "AuVox". The "McCain '08 clothespin" for us to wear while voting. He graciously gave me the authority to market these devices. I see these in red, white or blue with "McCain '08" proudly emblazoned down the side. Think about it - we could make millions - all the while performing a most important public service! :)
McNotObama '08
In order to be cheeky, I
July 7, 2008 - 16:35 ET by dscottIn order to be cheeky, I had to know about it in the first place. I had to look it up, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism , indeed there is such a terminology.
I stand corrected and therefore am less ignorant than before. <sarcasm>
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
Dan
July 7, 2008 - 17:44 ET by Noel SheppardDan,
You're welcome. Now sit down. :-) ns
I agree - lessor of two evils
July 7, 2008 - 12:11 ET by SouthJersey1953The more I hear/know about B(middle initial censored)O, the more he scares me. I honestly fear for the survival of our country with him in office. Hellary looks good compared to him.
I am not sure how I will vote, but will probably vote McLame but strickly as a vote against B(middle initial censored)O.
SJ, That's why I decribe my
July 7, 2008 - 12:16 ET by Chris NormanSJ, That's why I decribe my vote as one not for McCain but as one against Obama. I think there's a difference. A vote for anyone else, like Barr, or a write-in candidate would be a vote, in effect, for Obama, too.
unless your state is very blue
July 7, 2008 - 12:22 ET by SouthJersey1953My state is so blue, that my vote really doesn't count. The welfare wh%*#s up in north jersey will vote in the Dem no matter who it is. Therefore, I feel like I can vote for anyone and not have an effect on overall outcome. I almost always vote like my vote counts for something, but this time, I might actually vote for "None of the Above"
Not so, just ask the Democrats
July 7, 2008 - 12:30 ET by sarcasmoA vote for Nader's definitely a vote for McCain. :)
To be serious a moment, sometimes voters who've been ignored a lot wish to send a message. We have that right.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
If you vote for Nader you
July 7, 2008 - 13:05 ET by Chris NormanIf you vote for Nader you also have to sign the papers to release him from the asylum, too. :)
I am not sure how I will
July 7, 2008 - 13:44 ET by NewsbusterbrownI am not sure how I will vote, but will probably vote McLame but strickly as a vote against B(middle initial censored)O.
If you are a true conservative, that's the only reason why you would vote for McLame. I certainly will be holding my nose this November.
“There are no easy answers' but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right.” - Ronald Reagan (1964 Republican Convention)
Brown, See comments
July 7, 2008 - 14:24 ET by Chris NormanBrown,
See comments immdiately below. The McCain '08 clothespin shoul come in handy. If you act now, we will include the free McNotObama '08 hadkerchief to wipe your tears or anything else coming up after your vote. :)
McNotObama '08
:-D “There are no easy
July 7, 2008 - 14:37 ET by Newsbusterbrown:-D
“There are no easy answers' but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right.” - Ronald Reagan (1964 Republican Convention)
"Are social Conservatives warming to McCain?"
July 7, 2008 - 12:26 ET by AuVoxMy guess is that Obama supporters will walk enthusiastically into the polling place in November, while Republicans will grudgingly clip their "McCain '08" clothespins on their noses before signing in.
What may finally save us from the disaster of an Obama Presidency is that Republicans vote, whereas many Obama supporters will loudly and vocally chant his name, but have something better to do that day.
I agree though; a substantial number--perhaps a majority--of McCain voters will not be voting for our good Senator from Arizona, as much as they'll be voting against the rock-star pontificator from Illinois.
I stand by the observation I've had for a year: The people who are suporting Obama, are the same type of people who stood in line to buy an iPhone: He's new! He's hot! He's different! It isn't until later that they realize they'll be paying a boatload more for something that does the same thing as something else.
Republicans will grudgingly
July 7, 2008 - 13:01 ET by Chris NormanRepublicans will grudgingly clip their "McCain '08" clothespins on their noses
AuVox,
That's the most brilliant idea I've read in a while! A McCain '08 Clothespin! Is this your original idea? If so, you should get these in production immediately. You'll sell a million - maybe not to the McCain campaign committee or the GOP directly - but hey, who knows? I'm serious about this. I, for one, will take four dozen to hand out.
Agreed, great business idea.
July 7, 2008 - 13:01 ET by sarcasmoI suspect they'd outsell even the infamous Hillary nutcrackers, especially if you can somehow get 'em produced before the convention. In fact, IMO an Obama clothespin for Hillary-supporters might also sell to disaffected Democrats.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
If he doesn't do this, I
July 7, 2008 - 13:09 ET by Chris NormanIf he doesn't do this, I will. I'll go out and buy bags of clothes pins and a label printer to get started if I have to. :)
McCain '08 Clothespins
July 7, 2008 - 14:44 ET by AuVoxI modestly admit the visual popped into my head this morning, with no outside help. But since oftentimes good ideas erupt spontaneously from several sources, surely I'm not the only one.
As for having them mass-produced, consider this my blessing to do our traditional Conservative, capitalistic thing and make money off of all of us who'll use 'm...
AuVox
Our people will contact your
July 7, 2008 - 15:11 ET by Chris NormanOur people will contact your people to discuss royalties, etc. :)
McNotObama '08
Forecasters are worried; MSM bummed, too
July 7, 2008 - 12:28 ET by IgnatzJFahrquarhttp://www.nhc.noaa....
Looks like the US mainland will be spared once again from the onslaught of a global warming driven swirling vortex of death and destruction.
Prayers go out to those in Bermuda, though.
"All generalizations are false, including this one.” Mark Twain
Green Barack?
July 7, 2008 - 12:35 ET by CaringwhiteguySenator Obama's campaign charter was forced to make an unscheduled stop in St.Louis due to a mechanical issue. http://www.breitbart...
How ironic that the charter is a Midwest Airlines MD-80. Midwest recently announced major cutbacks including grounding its MD-80s. Why? MD-80s are not fuel efficient. http://current.newsw...
So you American peons . . . remember to follow Senator Obama's instructions for saving fuel in your daily lives. Just be careful to do as he says, not as he does.
we are between the devil and
July 7, 2008 - 12:35 ET by cocodriewe are between the devil and the deep blue sea. i would rather get in the boat with mccain than burn with hussein
→ Obama plane forced to land
July 7, 2008 - 13:03 ET by Cool ArrowEvidently one of his elevators didn't go all the way to the top.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
Hmmm, his rudders dont work
July 7, 2008 - 14:57 ET by Dan The Man 2Hmmm, his rudders dont work and he is aileronating all his focus groups. He seems to have very thin skin also, and is a lightwieght.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
no upside
July 7, 2008 - 13:03 ET by CatherwoodMccain is going nowhere fast. I think his campaign has stalled and McCain himself has the appeal of Bob Dole. It's really looking bad for all of us who see an Obama Osama presidency as the final act in a tragic play called "Liberals Gone Wild". Indeed, we are seeing the final coup de grace delivered by Hollywood and the MSM to the bared neck of the conservative movement. I guess it really began in 1964 and here we're seeing the final curtain brought down on a good try which has been defeated by partisan press which made it their mission to bring the Republican Party to its knees. My only real regret, because I've seen this coming for so long, is that we didn't fight back any harder than we have, i.e. like when we were about the Hispanic vote when trying to make decisions about immigration. George Bush let us down by not fighting back and leading us in that fight. It's all over but the crying.
Quite right
July 7, 2008 - 13:11 ET by Britcom---
Sen. John McCain (2003):
"...I am proud to say that I was born in your country.&
Flip flopping
July 7, 2008 - 13:06 ET by KC MulvilleIt’s an old reflection, but one worth remembering. In ages past, there was no such thing as instant communication. So, you had to communicate through representatives. In foreign affairs, you sent ambassadors. Because of the time lag, you couldn’t issue orders about each and every issue. In fact, you couldn’t respond to issues at all. You simply had to send a person you trusted. At best, you’d give them general guidelines, but mostly you just had to trust them. That’s why their character and honesty were more important than their stances on issues.
Our political system was designed for that old situation. You voted for representatives that you sent off to congress, but after that, you had very limited access to them. You didn’t really worry about issues so much. Remember, the Founders expected individuals to fight for the parochial, local interests of their constituents. The Founders assumed that representatives would care about geographical, not ideological, interests.
But those days are ridiculously gone. We don’t “send them off” anymore. Heck, with TV and cell phones, we’re “there” before they are -- we can watch them enter the capitol! And these days, geography is nowhere near as important as party affiliation. A New York Democrat pays much more attention to the speaker from San Francisco than to any constituent from Manhattan.
In the old days, we didn’t need to worry about issues as much as character. But these days, character is staged by consultants, and issues do matter. That’s why flip-flopping matters. When I vote for a candidate, I’m no longer trusting that he’ll represent my parochial, geographical interests, no matter what the issues are. Issues do matter. I’m voting for candidates based on their stand on the issues. When a candidate advertises that he believes in XYZ, and I vote for him on that basis, then he owes me his best effort to fulfill XYZ. He’s not allowed to keep my vote if he abandons the reason I voted for him. If he does, he loses all political authority.
Interesting observations
July 7, 2008 - 13:30 ET by dscottInteresting observations and it certainly does speak to how representation in the Republic has changed over time.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
Shock: Battlefield Detainees have Criminal Records, IN THE US!
July 7, 2008 - 13:07 ET by BritcomSource: Washington Post
---
Sen. John McCain (2003):
"...I am proud to say that I was born in your country.&
In the six-and-a-half
July 7, 2008 - 13:21 ET by Jack BauerI'm aghast!
Were any of these prsumed innocent citizens of the world read their Miranda rights, and offered a court appoined lawyer if they cannot afford one?
It has come to this...
July 7, 2008 - 15:22 ET by BritcomThe US Supreme Court has declared that it has civil jurisdiction over foreign soil. Doesn't that stink of imperialism?
The new Pledge:
---
Sen. John McCain (2003):
"...I am proud to say that I was born in your country.&
Which VP