GOP rivals clash on immigration, torture

By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 10 minutes ago

ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. - Republican presidential rivals Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney scornfully debated immigration in a provocative, no-holds-barred CNN/YouTube debate just over a month before the first votes are cast.

Giuliani, the front-runner in national polls, accused Romney Wednesday of employing illegal immigrants at his home and running a "sanctuary mansion." The testy personal exchange came after Romney said Giuliani had retained New York's status as a sanctuary city while he was mayor.

Romney said it would "not be American" to check the papers of workers employed by a contractor simply because they have a "funny accent." He had landscapers at his Belmont, Mass., home who turned out to be in the country illegally.

Giuliani shot back, calling Romney's attitude "holier than thou."

"Mitt usually criticizes people when he usually has the far worse record," Giuliani said.

The audience, however, booed Giuliani as he tried to persist in his criticism of Romney.

The confrontation came at the start of an innovative CNN/YouTube debate that forced the candidates to confront immigration immediately, signaling the volatility of the issue among Republican voters. The eight Republican candidates encountered a range of questions, including abortion, gun control from a gun wielding NRA member, and farm subsidies from a man eating an ear of corn.

They were even asked if they believed every word in the Bible by a man holding the holy book, and a question on the powers of the vice president from a gun-toting cartoon-version of Dick Cheney.

No one was exempt in the free-for-all as the candidates squabbled over interrogation techniques, the Iraq war, crime and who wields the most conservative record. The candidates tried to position themselves to the right of each other, knowing full well that conservatives hold sway in selecting the GOP nominee.

At the outset, immigration dominated the questions submitted online and swept in the remainder of the Republican field.

Fred Thompson took the opportunity to distinguish himself from both Romney and Giuliani, arguing that Romney had supported President Bush's plan to provide a path to citizenship for some immigrants in the United States illegally now. He took Giuliani to task for attacking Romney's employment of illegal immigrants.

"I think we've all had people who we've hired who in retrospect was a bad decision," he said, alluding to Bernard Kerik, Giuliani's disgraced former police commissioner who is under federal indictment on multiple charges.

Sen. John McCain, for whom the immigration issue has proved particularly vexing, defended his support for an unsuccessful overhaul of immigration laws that included a temporary worker program and a path to citizenship.

"We must recognize these are God's children as well," McCain said. "They need our love and compassion, and I want to ensure that I will enforce the borders first. But we won't demagogue it."

Mike Huckabee, who has also come under GOP criticism for some of his immigration policies while governor of Arkansas, defended benefits he supported for children of illegal immigrants, including allowing children to be eligible to apply for college scholarships.

"Are we going to say kids who are here illegally are going to get a special deal?" Romney asked.

Huckabee objected, saying the benefit was based on merit. "We are a better country than to punish children for what their parents did," he said.

The most fierce exchanges were among the candidates with the most at stake with only five weeks left before the first voting in the presidential contest begins. Giuliani leads in national polls but trails Romney in early-voting Iowa and New Hampshire. Romney faces challenges from Huckabee in Iowa and from Giuliani and McCain in New Hampshire.

Thompson, in what amounted to one of the first video attacks of the campaign, questioned the conservative credentials of two of his rivals in a YouTube clip. The video challenged Romney on abortion and Huckabee on taxes.

"I wanted to give my buddies here a little extra air time," Thompson said to laughter as he defended the video.

For Thompson, Romney and Huckabee are his biggest obstacles toward establishing himself as the candidate of conservatives.

"I was wrong, I was effectively pro-choice," said Romney, who has said he changed his stance in 2004 during debates on stem cell research. "On abortion, I was wrong."

"If people are looking for somebody in this country who has never made a mistake ... then they ought to find somebody else," he said.

As the front-runner, Giuliani faced questions about gun control, abortion and whether New York taxpayers foot the bill for security he received while the married mayor visited his then-girlfriend, Judith Nathan, now his wife.

Giuliani said he had 24-hour protection as mayor because of threats against him and said all costs incurred were proper.

"I had nothing to do with the handling of their records," he said of how his security detail reported the expenses. "And they were handled, as far as I know, perfectly appropriately."

McCain, who has shown no love for Romney during the campaign, seized on Romney's response to a question about the legality of waterboarding as an interrogation technique. Romney said that as a candidate he would not publicly discuss what techniques he would rule out. That prompted McCain, a former Vietnam POW, to assert that waterboarding is indeed torture and should not be tolerated.

"Governor, let me tell you, if we're going to gain the high ground in this world ... we're not going to torture people," McCain said. "How in the world someone could think that that kind of thing could be inflicted on people who are in our custody is absolutely beyond me."

McCain also engaged Ron Paul, a Texas congressman whose libertarian views and opposition to the war have attracted thousands of donors, millions of dollars and a devoted online following.

McCain said Paul is promoting isolationism in calling for the United States to disengage from the war. "We allowed (Adolf) Hitler to come to power with that attitude of isolation," he said.

Paul objected, saying McCain had misunderstood his support for nonintervention with isolationism.

"I want to trade with people, talk with people, travel," Paul replied. "But I don't want to send troops overseas using force to tell them how to live." Later he made clear he would not run as an independent, despite demands from many of his supporters.

One questioner, Keith Kerr of Santa Rosa, Calif., a retired Army colonel who served as a brigadier general in the reserves, asked the candidates about their views on gays in the military and revealed himself to be gay. Not mentioned was his membership on a steering committee of gays and lesbians for Democratic candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Huckabee, Romney, McCain and Rep. Duncan Hunter all said they supported the current "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

The debate ended as it began, with Romney and Giuliani in a deeply personal dispute — over the New York Yankees vs. the Boston Red Sox.

"When I was mayor of New York City, the Yankees won four world championships," Giuliani said. "Since I've left being mayor of New York City, the Yankees have won none."

Romney, who was off by one year — 87 instead of 86 — on the length of the Red Sox World Series drought, replied: "Like most Americans, we love our sports teams and hate the Yankees."

I've lost a lot of respect for John McCain over the years because every time he starts to grow a backbone, he buckles like a belt in the most publicly humiliating way possible. Rove goes around telling everyone McCain's got an illegitimate black baby (not true), but when Bush gets the nomination, there's McCain hugging him on the front page of the Times. McCain pushes back on torture, and then passes a law that allows the White House to define "torture." WTF is it with this guy? Does he just have spasms of independent thought, and then suddenly he remembers he's a Republican?

Oh, but he hates steroids in baseball something fierce.

McCain seems to be all over the place on issues, imo anyway.

I'm about as unimpressed with this group as I am with the Dems, but I will be voting Republican.

McCain seems to be all over the place on issues, imo anyway.

I'm about as unimpressed with this group as I am with the Dems, but I will be voting Republican.

Good luck with Julie. Honestly for all the jostling for position, I don't see how anyone else is going to come out on top of that heap.

If Romney wins in Iowa, he'll prolly win in NH. If he wins those 2 he'll prolly win SC, if he wins those 3, Michigan will prolly follow, etc etc etc.

Huckabee is in the lead in Iowa, or was last night when the debate took place.

Yep, 28% to 26% averaged out. We'll see. All I was doing is laying out a scenario for TBS, where someone else could win. That is somewhat likely, imo even with the slight lead Huck has. Its still within the margin of error.

CNN had several questions from peeps who support Dem candidates. One works for Hill another for Edwards. No big deal, but those pussy Dem candidates were too big a bunch of pussies to come on Fox News debate. The boycotted it.

Bunch of fucking losers

I haven't paid much attention to any of the debates. It is somewhat pointless this early on IMO, because the only two candidates getting votes will be the ones nominated by their respective party. Anyway, from what little I have absorbed I like Ron Paul's general approach to things. I'm pretty ignorant on everybody's views on certain issues, but Paul seems to care more about the constitution and not being the bullheaded asshole country with foreign affairs. He most likely won't even be close to the nomination though.

I'm not sure why Paul didn't run as an Indi. IMO, he would have done much better. Unless running as an Indi it would have been a pain as he is a Rep.

I don't get why Ron Paul is a Republican. The era of the fiscally conservative, limited government Republican died 25 years ago, on his watch, with his man at the helm.

Here we have to make a differentiation between conservative movements. There is no single conservative movement. There are actually four conservative movements that are under one tent.

Classical conservatism ended with Barry Goldwater desperately waving its flag. It meant small government, fiscal conservatism, low taxes, live-and-let-live type of ideology. It's been dead since the 60s, and even then it was just a longing for a bygone 1920s. Everyone had to face the fact that big government saved the country during the Depression. More importantly, a small government is a weak government and conservatives hate weakness.

Neoconservatism is next. It starts with Irv Kristol in the 50s and takes hold in the young appointees in the Nixon administration. It doesn't mind big government, as long as that government acts strongly and decisively in what it sees as its self-interest. It sees the world in black-and-white: each country has friends and enemies, and you have to be either one or the other. Friends will be allies; enemies will be destroyed. Neoconservatism is effectively empire-building, because the alliances a strong nation seeks with weaker nations are guided only by the self-interest of the stronger nation.

Paleoconservatism came later. It comes mainly out of the 1970s and 1980s, with people like Pat Buchanan. Here's where conservatives take a social stand. It's strongly law-and-order, anti-socialist, pro-tradition, anti-change. Basically it's the idea that whatever was good enough for Grandpa is good enough for us, and this is the movement of the "culture warriors" like Bill O'Reilly. Reagan ran for office on a strongly paleoconservative platform, and it manifested itself in his reaction to the AIDS crisis in 1983 - which is to say, he didn't have one. Work hard! Go to church! Have a passel of kids! Don't be gay! Be a good American! They don't seem to have much of a care for the actual political ideology of classical conservatism, but they sure do like the look and sound of it. It's a very emotionally overwrought bunch of guys. Which is how the next guys jumped on board...

Religious conservatives don't really have much in common with the others. Paleoconservatism appeals to them, but to a religious conservative, the best guiding force to a country isn't tradition at all but rather a tenacious faith in Christianity. They will do anything to further their agenda. They have many ideas that are not actually conservative at all, and many ideas that betray a lack of any confidence or interest in political institutions. But they use their membership in the conservative big tent to peddle their favorite religious movement.

...

I think the whole "limited government" thing died in the Nixon years. There was no turning back after that point. Reagan ran on the platform of being a classical conservative, but there's no way he could actually govern that way once he took office in 1981. The executive bureaucracy was already enormous, and enormously helpful to the Executive who wants to protect himself. Whether he knew that beforehand, I don't know. But people like Ron Paul and the (big L) Libertarian Party are just selling you a dream that can't be achieved anymore. Why would any government reduce its size, when it's exactly that size that keeps it insulated from prying eyes?

Paul, I presume, will run as the libertarian cadidate for pres. once this bid is over. He's got quite a bit of money raised now. Only reason he wouldn't is if he wishes not to detract from the Lick's choice of candidate and steal votes ala Nader.

And we Libertarians are the fastest growing political organization. We don't dream of a return to frontier living, just slowing this beast down.

I'd be interested to see the reaction of Republicans to a Ron Paul Libertarian or Indie bid. Probably something like the reaction of Dems to Lieberman. ...except with more repressed homosexuality.

I'd be interested to see the reaction of Republicans to a Ron Paul Libertarian or Indie bid. Probably something like the reaction of Dems to Lieberman. ...except with more repressed homosexuality.
I think it'd be more like Nader in 2000...except with smaller penises.

I like the way the Republican race is playing out. I hate it when Iowa, NH and SC pick the nominee.

Anything toward a brokered convention can't be good in the short term for Republicans. If Rudy wins Florida and Fred Thompson picks up steam, things could turn radioactive fast.

Odds On: Who will be named as the Republican Candidate for the 2008 US Presidential Election?

Rudy Giuliani
3/1

John McCain
8/5

Fred Thompson
8/1

Newt Gingrich
20/1

Mitt Romney
4/1

Mike Huckabee
9/5

Tommy Thompson
20/1

Sam Brownback
40/1

Chuck Hagel
30/1

Duncan Hunter
35/1

Tom Tancredo
50/1

Jim Gilmore
60/1

Ron Paul
5/2

Field
40

Paul at 5/2? This is fucked up.

Fred Thompson just dropped out. Huckabee would appear to be the biggest benefactor as a Southerner.

And a conservative.

The untold story at the moment seems to be Romney in Florida, who is keeping up with and, in some cases, polling ahead of John "Momentum" McCain and Rudy "Freefall" Giuliani.

Huck pulled out of Florida. I don't like this guy at all. Here is Florida, one of the only swing states of the big 4 and he won't compete. what a douche bag.

edit...meaning NY, CA always goes blue and Texas goes red. Fla is a biggie. If you can't compete there, you have no biz getting the nomination, imo.

I'm amazed that Huckabee's having a hard time in Florida. Check out when his numbers go from the twenties to the teens:

http://www.pollster.com/08-FL-Rep-Pres-Primary.php

He lost momentum in Florida -after- he won Iowa.

tqldpqCKnZA

911 voters. That's funny.

I'm interested in the fallout from the Florida/Michigan early primary dance for the Republican side. If Mitt manages to win Florida (he's tied or ahead in most polls, even after McCain's recent endorsements), and can leverage that into a good Super Tuesday performance... WHOA MAMA! The RNC's decision to cave in to Florida and Michigan will have huge ramifications. Those small Southern states that the Republicans need to push 'em over the top won't be lining up behind Romney in a general election, that's for damn sure.

Just a general comment about the Republicans...The race is way WAY more boring than the Dems.

Bringing in an Ex-Prez to sling mud is priceless.

Its rumored, that after RG's disappointing performance tonight in Florida, he will throw his support behind McCain tommorow...possibly after the California debate.

Fuck...conservative Republicans have no one to vote for if McCain gets the nod.

The field is too crowded and the RNC likes winner-take-most and winner-take-all delegate awarding. So you're seeing the candidates get big delegates winning with small percentages, leaving out a lot of people. The social conservates are getting screwed. I suspect Huckabee is the VP no matter who wins the nod for President, which should be interesting.

How would a McCain RG ticket do? Something says, no about that.

I think RG would make a good VP. He could actually get some things done. I really like Rudy....maybe not as prez, but think he gets stuff done.

No way does that happen. They need someone relatively young and light on scandal who appeals to evangelicals -- this has Huckabee written all over it. Rudy has way too many skeletons in the closet.

And no way does Rudy get a cabinet appointment ok'ed by Congress under a Republican president unless (quite literally) a bomb goes off and Republicans miraculously take back Congress.

AFAICT, he's toast politically.

I'm gonna puke if Huckabee is on a ticket.

I heard a couple of peeps comment on RG McCain Tick and wasn't all bad.

As far as skeletons go, if voters like someone, they elect them. Look at how many peeps get reelected after a felony or something.

just turned on the republican debate on cnn. what a joke.

first, its mccain, romney, and anderson cooper talking over eachother.

about 5 minutes of this later, turns out ron paul and huckabee are there.

huckabee begins his response with, "uhhh i didnt come here to umpire a debate".

poorly put on debate, cooper has sucked as a moderator, getting bullied around.

romney looks toast though, cant imagine mccain losing this one.

it really is a shame ron paul has no shot at this.

romney almost gave the perfect response to "why are you more qualified to lead the army than john mccain", he started off by saying the military has become more complex... had he followed this and argued mccain's experience was a liability because all he knew was outdated and incompatibal with today, it would have been a great answer. instead he wondered off into lala land.

paul gave a great answer too. he has a really easy job, too bad no one is taking him seriously.

someone should have mentioned to mccain that capri pants arent appropriate for a presidential nomination debate.

I forgot about the debates. McCain will win and conservatives will have no one to vote for in the general. Not saying he won't win it, but to win it, he has to pull indis to replace the conservative vote he won't get.

im not sure his pro iraq war message is gonna play with indis. at a nh rally he said he was prepared to be in iraq for a hundred years. an honest answer maybe, but also unpopular. bad news when you need to win the popular vote.

I think the peeps supported the war when it was going well and opposed it when it started going bad. Now that its going a lot better, I don't think it will hurt him.

RG will be in line for Homeland Security or AG cuz of his support for JM.

Are we better off now than we were 8 years ago?

ive been jumped on for posting poll results before, but i see almost 70 % of america disaproving of the war, tahoe.

being in the war camp hurts. big time.

Give me some recent polls. I could prolly post polls when 90% agreed with it.

Its a new time.

Rumsfeld fucked things up pretty bad over there and the polls reflected it. Now things are better.

where are you seeing 90%???

I remember polls where 90 were supporting the war right after it started. Certainly the majority of Americans supported the war. When things got screwed up, the support stopped.

The Congress even supported it.

Diddy...this was a post from the Florida coverage. This was all exit polls, so take it for what its worth.

Its just my opinion but I don't think McCain loses the general election because of his stance on Iraq. First he needs to get the nomination, but I don't think the war is unpopular, but Bush's handling of it sure was/is.


Conservatives...Romney 40% McCain 27.

Evangelicals...Romney 34 McCain 28

Economy ... McCain 38 Romney 34

I guess a bunch of peeps, indis, registered as Reps when the Dems things got fucked up. McCain kicking ass with those peeps.

but I don't think the war is unpopular


<record scratch>

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

That is a "How is Bush doing" question, rather than a "do you approve of the war in principle" question.

there are tons of polls there, including "do you favor or oppose the war in iraq", with 34-63 favor/opposing.

My mistake. I only read the Wall Street Journal poll.

Yea I fucked that sentence up...but from what I read is that the war isn't as unpopular as Bush's handling of it. If thats any better.

Just saw some polls and Fuckin McCain looks tough to beat. But he's such a douche nozzle sometimes.

Bob Dole was beating Bill Clinton in polling at around the same time.

McCain makes a great candidate for Dems.

Romney changed his positions, but at least he went from being wrong to being right.

Go Romney.

How is immigration a winning issue for Republicans?

I'm not sure it is. But what did I say that made you say that? I do think the country is less ready to give amnesty to IA than Dems think, judging by Spitzer's situation in NY.

McCain is not a conservative, imo. Thats mostly what I was trying to say.

The only reason that we're not seeing Romney leading is because of his stance on immigration. That's surely how Romney lost Florida. McCain and Huckabee are demonstrably more "open" on the matter (but like to pretend otherwise).

The fundamental structural problem with Republicans and immigration is that the the 14th Amendment makes the delegate counts, congressional districts, the electoral college, etc. based off illegal immigrants. There's little incentive for politicians in immigrant-heavy areas to seriously oppose them. For those who would "fix" immigration, they need to push a very-focused constitutional amendment and get it through 38 states and a constitutional convention. No one's really done that.

Romney won most of conservative, security, etc vote in Florida, iirc. He won the majority of the Republican vote.

It was all the indi's that registered as Rep cuz the Dem thingy was all fucked up that went HUGE for McCain.

Romney is a new face and the conservatives didn't rally behind him early enough. Now its too late. McCain won this thing unless something HUGE happens.

You know I wish this year, more than ever, we had a 3rd party...or 3 peeps running. Let BO/HillBilly fight it out for one, McCain obviously has a following for the second and a conservative for the 3rd. Problem is, we don't have a conservative to vote for.

but hopefully you get my drift.

but hopefully you get my drift.

Yeah, you want two chances to win it instead of one.

Gotcha, lol.

<---BUSTED!

Romney won most of conservative, security, etc vote in Florida, iirc. He won the majority of the Republican vote.

It was all the indi's that registered as Rep cuz the Dem thingy was all fucked up that went HUGE for McCain.
Check the exit polls. McCain's won even the "somewhat conservative" vote ahead of Romney, slightly. There were narrow swings one way or the other, and some religious stuff that keeps Huckabee around. But, by far McCain's biggest edge, the biggest swing that kept him on top above Romney, was with immigrations and Hispanics. Romney's stance on immigration appears to be the only thing that kept him in the race (and is giving him some buzz in California at the moment). It's not enough to get him a primary win in any state with sizable Republican immigrants, and it's certainly not enough to win a general election.

If immigration remains a conservative plank, they'll walk on it into the ocean AFAICT.

I haven't checked any e polls since I posted what the announcers said were the e polls from Florida. Were those wrong or revised?

http://www.wtfdetroit.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11466

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/index.html#FLREP

Look at the "Somewhat Conservative" vote on page 4, where McCain edged Romney. It was only the "Very Conservative" vote (which was less of a % of total vote than "Somewhat") where Romney won.

It was immigration that:

a) got Romney the votes he did
b) killed his ability to win overall

You have to get to "Very Conservative" before you get to the "let's kick out a gazillion immigrants in 90 days" crowd.

I will bet that McCain does something really fucking stupid before November. He blows a gasket somewhere along the line.

I will bet that McCain does something really fucking stupid before November. He blows a gasket somewhere along the line.


John McCain would make a terrible President IMO. The guy's by far the most liberal minded republican I've ever seen...He should be a Dem.

John McCain would make a terrible President IMO. The guy's by far the most liberal minded republican I've ever seen...He should be a Dem.

Was it McCain's firm pro-life stance or his unwavering support of the war in iraq that really cemented his liberal credentials for you?

IIRC, pro-life and anti-gay-marriage are Wil Ledezma's most important issues. McCain surely didn't run on a firm pro-life stance in 2000:

http://www.euthanasia.com/mccain99.html

and has since voted for stem-cell research stuff. He's flip-flopped, but he's not a Ginobili-level flip-flopper like Romney, more a classic panderer. McCain said he was ok with gay marriage, until he realized just what he said and then flopped in the same interview. The theory is that a real conservative would never act as McCain has acted, and I have to agree. He's also done such pandering with Iraq at times, before voting lock, stock, and barrel with Team Bush.

BTW, here's Fox News' latest antics:

http://images.dailykos.com/images/user/1054/fox_mccaind.jpg

lol, i dont think they want him either.

I just woke up...what am I missing in Fox's latest antics? thx

What political party is McCain shown as being in the picture?
Answer: The Demoncratic party

See, their subliminal shit works on their viewers.

Tahoe didn't even notice the D.

What political party is McCain shown as being in the picture?
Answer: The Demoncratic party

What? I still don't get it. HESAFUKINGDEMDAMNIT

This guy...btw...this guy says we can only 'talk sternly' to enemies.

WTF? We can't use a squirt gun on them, we can't say BOO! to them, we can't talk about their mamas, all we can do is ask for their name, rank and Jihad number.

Something that makes me like McCain just a little more:

http://www.slate.com/id/2183031


As a fighter pilot in Pensacola, Fla., 30 years ago, McCain and his exotic-dancer girlfriend dropped by the dinner party of some married ensigns and were greeted with "disbelief and alarm."

for me, it's Romney, Huckabee or bust...

I would've even voted for Guilani as well...

but not McCain, last thing we need is another liberal-minded fool who will nickel and dime every citizen for the governments well-being...

McCain = Granholm = Joke

iN9CYsaVY7c
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c249/6bright7eyes8/mccain_hillary_lovefest.jpg

Did you see that thing CNN did, where they gave Huck 50% of the vote in every state and they gave McCain 40%....Even though Huck wins every state, McCain still wins due to winning partial deligates.

Its Ovah!

Yeah, but Huckabee can potentially make McCain look bad for awhile. McCain doesn't want to make him VP, but doesn't want to piss off social conservatives. Not winning a primary once it was reduced to two big candidates and limping on a stream of losses to the finish line won't look good. It could all be moot after Potomac Tuesday.

Its long enough away from the actual start of the campaigning that it won't matter if Huck makes him look bad.

Judging by the turnout for the 2 parties, this thing looks like the winner of Dems wins it all.

yjbknhX383A

Listening to McCain after listening to BO is painful. Actually it he makes me really tired.

A Politico reporter just said that behind the scenes, the McCain camp is livid with Huckabee. They will continue to say good things to the media but they are pissed, i guess.

He speaks with a mausoleum in the background, and he's the candidate of perpetual war. He could be less appealing if he tried, though.

dnLCK3knuY8

-- Mitt Romney will endorse John McCain as the GOP nominee for president, CNN has learned.

Romney will be able to say he did the right things in this race. He backed out at the right time and supported the nominee. So he will be back as a candidate and won't have to spend so much of his own money next time.

Personally, I can think of lot of things to do with 80million dollars. Running for Prez isn't one of them.

Running as the Republican nominee for President in 2008 seems like a pointless waste of time that only old people and hillbillies would actually enjoy, CNN has learned.

McCains wife still looks boneable? No? I just saw her in the background and damn.

that sob might get my vote yet.

McCains wife still looks boneable? No? I just saw her in the background and damn.


muy plastico

McCain has an eye for the hotties. His first wife was a model, who he dumped after getting back from the Hanoi Hilton because she got into an auto accident and turned fugly. He was tapping strippers. He's a player.

Ann Romney wasn't so bad either. But, for my money, Jeri "I look like I just gave Fred a BJ" Thompson -- heh... lucky man.

http://drx.typepad.com/psychotherapyblog/images/2007/07/25/fred_and_jeri_thompson_2.jpg

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jeEhdtLNWzxqbTQ04a0I_1LokarwD8UR1RC00

McCain has an eye for the hotties. His first wife was a model, who he dumped after getting back from the Hanoi Hilton because she got into an auto accident and turned fugly. He was tapping strippers. He's a player.
Heh heh heh... I must've had a psychic moment:


WASHINGTON — 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.
etc.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/politics/21mccain.html?_r=1&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print

http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/1218/stooges2k8smmy3.jpg

Mrs. McCain looks kinda creepy, like some bad assed librarian who's not afraid utilize a little "wooden ruler love" for the sake of silence.

Mrs. McCain looks kinda creepy, like some bad assed librarian who's not afraid utilize a little "wooden ruler love" for the sake of silence.

She looks like she's had more work done on her than the Tittabawassee Bridge.

Ever since I posted that, she looks plastic as hell. In that one shot, I'm telling ya, I'd have played a lil hide the salami with her.

She was hot 8 years ago. Now she's auditioning to be one of the lizard ladies from V.

BTW, the Dems are suing McCain for violating the McCain-Feingold campaign financing laws! This is a hoot!

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/24/mccain.finance/

The Dems are nothing but grandstanders

The Dems are nothing but grandstanders
Question: If Obama gets the nom, dos McCain go for Condi Rice as Veep to split the black vote?

Actually, the lawsuit is sort of interesting.

If you get free ballot access in some states by saying you accept matching funds, can you just back out of matching funds? Ballot access costs millions in some places, because you have to round up signatures (a.k.a. grease local politicians). The intent of McCain-Feingold was to make it so that once you started using thosee matching funds status for acquiring stuff, then you're in the program, even if you don't take the actual matching funds. It's not clear if the law explicitly accounts for -gifts- as a function of matching status as distinct from loans. McCain clearly did use his matching funds status to get ballot access in Ohio, and may have in Indiana and other states as well.

If McCain is limited from spending money until September, it's over for him (unless Romney wants to fund a "vote for McCain" campaign, for some odd reason). The same thing happened to Bob Dole in 1996. Clinton was on his heels in early 1996 in the wake of Whitewater. But Dole ran out of federal matching funds in defending himself against Forbes and Buchanan in the primaries, and was fucked until the convention.

on top, right now it looks like the ny times article is helping mccain cuz the right is rallying. its a short term gain because the article reached (maybe).

but its going to be a long term loss, this article (still havent read it) supposedly is quite substantive beyond the romance allegation. this is going to bleed mccain in the long run. once people look past the romance allegations, its going to get bad.

Lanny Davis (Dem) big Clinton supporter said it is a horrible article. He said it was a hit piece.

my understanding is that it talks alot about his campaign staffers being filled with lobbyist big wigs and that the stright talk express is pretty much a chaeffeur to corporate US.

im gonna read the article. let the speculation end!

back from reading it... i think all you can say is 'we will see'.

the piece definitly suggests smoke. its definitly suggesting more than just an affair (and all it does is suggest maybe an affair, never says there was one).

i guess it depends on how much the involvement of lobbyists on mccain bothers you.

certainly the most damning piece of the article is old hat "keating five stuff".

i think the timing of this article is telling. released right after mccain officially nominated... would the right have really nominated a candidate DOA? was the piece held back till there was no escape?

lobbyists being overly influential on mccain could kill whatever support he earns. this article i think might be the first spark towards that. it doesnt have to be an affair that derails mccain's candidacy.

Its a pos hit piece. Bennet contacted the Times with the letter written where McCain stated cleary that he didn't want them act either way, but to vote on it. he did that twice.

Davis was a lobbyist at the time on the issue and lobbied for McCain to go further in the letter. Davis said, McCain refused.

Its a piece of shit article that anyone could write about anyone else. Raise questions with NOTHING, just hoping something will stick.

Before you put something on your front page, have some sources...besides the unnamed ones.

I don't like McCain, but this is shit, plain and simple. I don't care who its written about.

BTW...a couple of the Times own editorial writters said it was wrong to run it.

The lobbying angle -is- newsworthy, and the subsequent followup in other newspapers (bigtime lobbyists working from his Straight Talk campaign bus, denials contradicted by his own sworn testimony) is as well. But the initial piece and the sex angle is largely unsubstantiated. Had they not mentioned sex at all, the piece would've worked, but wouldn't have been THE headline.

Of course, the NYT piece was probably been the best thing in the world to unite Republicans behind McCain, with Hillary's chances fading. Hell, McCain should be thanking them for mobilizing his base better than he could.

Of course, the NYT piece was probably been the best thing in the world to unite Republicans behind McCain, with Hillary's chances fading. Hell, McCain should be thanking them for mobilizing his base better than he could.

Dan Rather part duex.

any time lobbyists are running a dudes campaign free of charge, i think that alone tells you something.

as much as this may help mccain short term rallying the party, i think this article is the blueprint for a campaign that is not going to go well for mccain.

The lobbying angle -is-NOT- newsworthy, and the subsequent followup in other newspapers (bigtime lobbyists working from his Straight Talk campaign bus, denials contradicted by his own sworn testimony) is as well. But the initial piece and the sex angle is largely unsubstantiated. Had they not mentioned sex at all, the piece would've worked, but wouldn't have been THE headline.

Of course, the NYT piece was probably been the best thing in the world to unite Republicans behind McCain, with Hillary's chances fading. Hell, McCain should be thanking them for mobilizing his base better than he could.

Agree

lobbyists dont bother you?

What's going to happen is that McCain's people are going to be constantly referring to this as a failed accusation of a sex scandal. They're going to recharacterize it as something other than a lobbying issue.

i dont think so. there are going to be more articles, more precise articles.

mccain did an accross the board denial. i believe thats already being refuted.

mccain would LOVE to have this just been about an affair. and while its the NYT, he might beable to duck it. i dont think the media is just going to give him a pass, though.

The goal is to cut into indy votes, who are (theoretically) more against lobbyists than the party liners. The more McCain reminds them of the typical bought-for and paid-for politician, the weaker his support gets.

I'm amused by McCain's lapses into reasonable positions. He was 100% right that his success depends on selling the country on the surge, then he backs off the statement as if he never said it. His inner instincts are reasonable, which is part of his appeal. But the 2008 McCain remembers that he must kowtow to (so-called) conservative Republicans.

McCain's positions on everything remind me of something Winston Churchill said: "You can always count on Americans to do the right thing, after having exhausted every other possibility."

McCain is wining and dining reporters -- super-nice BBQ at his place this weekend. I would've liked it more if he were BBQing reporters, but that's just me. Hillary, meanwhile, had her press corps stationed in a men's bathroom in Austin. And no, that's not a joke.

http://www.johnmccain.com/images/email/fromthedeskofjsm.jpg

My Friends,

Last week, I was humbled to win the support of 1,191 delegates and officially become the presumptive nominee of our party. It was a great honor to also receive the endorsement of President Bush and visit the Republican National Committee to begin laying out our strategy for victory in November. We face a tough challenge, but I'm confident that together we will win.

It's been a long journey. While I would like to sit back and reflect on what we've been through over these many months, there will be time for that later. Right now, beginning today, we must join together as a party. We must unite as we face either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama in November. I ask that you join me today and make a financial commitment to help our campaign replenish our resources to achieve our goals.

Now we move into the second phase of this campaign. Together, we must convince the American people that our shared conservative principles and my election as president, are in the best interests of the country we love.

And this will be, without question, the toughest phase. From this moment forward, whomever the Democrats choose, we will face a candidate directly opposed to us on every important issue facing our nation. The Democratic nominee will increase the size of the federal government, raise your taxes, and withdraw our armed forces from Iraq's front lines based on an arbitrary timetable. My commitment will be to cut taxes, reduce the size of government and bring the war to the swiftest possible conclusion without leaving the region in chaos, or an enemy emboldened to attack us elsewhere with weapons we dare not allow them to possess.

As I've said many times, this election is about big things. And it will be the most expensive election battle in history. The Democrats have demonstrated their ability to raise an astonishing amount of money for their campaign. Soon those resources will be focused on me. We must be ready. I am asking today to help replenish our resources and begin the long difficult march to victory by making a contribution of $50, $100, $250, $500 or even $1,000.

We have prepared for this fight for a long, long time. It begins today. We've come this far. Let's go on to victory.

Thank you,

http://www.johnmccain.com/images/email/mccainsig_150.jpg
John McCain

P.S. I cannot overemphasize how critical it is to rebuild our campaign resources as quickly as possible. I urge you to please make whatever contribution you can today, right now, by following this link. There will be no second chances in this fight. This is our moment to join together and show the strength of our party. Thank you.

John McCain drinking game:

Every time McCain uses the phrase "My friends", drink up!

is this a problem?


WASHINGTON (AP) -- Top current advisers to Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign last year lobbied for a European plane maker that beat Boeing to a $35 billion Air Force tanker contract, taking sides in a bidding fight that McCain has tried to referee for more than five years.


Sen. John McCain talks to reporters during a flight to St. Louis, Missouri, Monday.

Two of the advisers gave up their lobbying work when they joined McCain's campaign. A third, former Texas Rep. Tom Loeffler, lobbied for the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co. while serving as McCain's national finance chairman.

EADS is the parent company of Airbus, which teamed up with U.S.-based Northrop Grumman Corp. to win the lucrative aerial refueling contract on February 29. Boeing Co. Chairman and CEO Jim McNerney said in a statement Monday that the Chicago-based aerospace company "found serious flaws in the process that we believe warrant appeal."

McCain, the Republican presidential nominee in waiting, has been a key figure in the Pentagon's yearslong attempt to complete a deal on the tanker. McCain helped block an earlier tanker contract with Boeing and prodded the Pentagon in 2006 to develop bidding procedures that did not exclude Airbus.

Don't Miss
McCain works to refill campaign coffers
Election Center 2008
EADS retained Ogilvy Government Relations and The Loeffler Group to lobby for the tanker deal last year, months after McCain sent two letters urging the Defense Department to make sure the bidding proposals guaranteed competition.

"They never lobbied him related to the issues, and the letters went out before they were contracted" by EADS, McCain campaign spokeswoman Jill Hazelbaker said Monday.

According to lobbying records filed with the Senate, Loeffler Group lobbyists on the project included Loeffler and Susan Nelson, who left the firm and is now the campaign's finance director. Ogilvy lobbyist John Green, who was assigned the EADS work, recently took a leave of absence to volunteer for McCain as the campaign's congressional liaison.

"The aesthetics are not good, especially since he is an advocate of reform and transparency," said Richard Aboulafia, an analyst with the aerospace consulting firm Teal Group. "Boeing advocates are going to use this as ammunition."

McCain, a longtime critic of influence peddling and special interest politics, has come under increased scrutiny as a presidential candidate, particularly because he has surrounded himself with advisers who are veteran Washington lobbyists. He has defended his inner circle and has emphatically denied reports last month in The New York Times and The Washington Post that suggested he helped the client of a lobbyist friend nine years ago.

He has also cast himself as a neutral watchdog in the Air Force tanker contract, one of the largest in decades.

"All I asked for in this situation was a fair competition," he told reporters Monday at Lambert Field in St. Louis, home of a Boeing fighter jet plant.

On Friday, he defended his aggressive oversight: "I never weighed in for or against anybody that competed for the contract. All I asked for was a fair process. And the facts are that I never showed any bias in any way against anybody -- except for the taxpayer."

Last week, Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the EADS-Northrop Gruman plane was "clearly a better performer" than the one proposed by Boeing.

It is unclear what EADS hired the lobbyists to do. Loeffler and Airbus officials did not immediately respond to phone and e-mail messages left late Monday.

A Boeing spokesman declined to comment Monday on the links between McCain and lobbying efforts on behalf of EADS.

But Boeing supporters already have begun to accuse McCain of damaging Boeing's chances by inserting himself into the tanker deal.

One of them, Rep. Norm Dicks, D-Washington, said the field was "tilted to Airbus" because the Pentagon did not weigh European subsidies for Airbus in its deliberations -- a decision he blamed on McCain. Everett, Wash., is where Boeing would perform much of the tanker work, and Dicks is a senior member of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee.

In December 2006, just weeks before the Air Force was set to release its formal request for proposals, McCain wrote a letter to the incoming defense secretary, Robert Gates, warning that he was "troubled" by the Air Force's draft request for bids.

The United States had filed a complaint with the World Trade Organization alleging that Airbus unfairly benefits from European subsidies. Airbus in turn argued that Boeing also receives government support, mostly as tax breaks.

Under the Air Force proposal, bidders would have been required to explain how financial penalties or other sanctions stemming from the subsidy dispute might affect their ability to execute the contract. The request was widely viewed as hurting the EADS-Northrop Grumman bid.

The proposed bid request "may risk eliminating competition before bids are submitted," McCain wrote in a December 1, 2006, letter to Gates. The Air Force changed the criteria four days later.

Dicks said the removal of the subsidy language was a "game-changer" that favored EADS over Boeing.

"The only reason that they could even bid a low price is because they received a subsidy," Dicks said last week. "And Senator McCain jumped into this and said that (the Air Force) could not look at the subsidy issue -- which I think is a big mistake, especially when the U.S. trade representative is bringing a case in the (World Trade Organization) on this very issue."

EADS' interest in the tanker deal is evident in the political contributions of its employees. From 2004 to 2006, donations by its employees jumped from $42,500 to $141,931, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. So far this election cycle, company employees have donated $120,350. Of that, McCain's presidential campaign has received $14,000, the most of any other member of Congress this election cycle.

McCain prides himself in the role he played blocking an earlier version of the tanker deal that gave the contract to Boeing. As chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee and of an Armed Services subcommittee, McCain led an investigation that eventually helped kill that contract in 2004. A former Air Force official and a top Boeing executive both served time in prison, and the scandal led to the departure of Boeing's chief executive and several top Air Force officials.

"I intervened in a process that was clearly corrupt," McCain said Friday. "That's why people went to jail."

While McCain has praised Boeing for fixing its practices, his campaign said the experience prompted him to demand "a full, fair and open competition." His letters -- one to Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England in September 2006 and the other to Gates -- were sent with that spirit in mind, Hazelbaker said Monday.

Once the rules were in place, Hazelbaker said, bidders submitted proposals, the Air Force reviewed them and the contract was awarded.

"That is a process that McCain, appropriately, had absolutely no role in," she said


http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/11/mccain.airbus.ap/index.html

John McCain drinking game:

Every time McCain uses the phrase "My friends", drink up!
Seriously, he's like the new Joe Franklin or something.

Try not to laugh...




Dear Glenn,

During the last seven years, you have stood shoulder to shoulder with me to meet the challenges that faced our country.

Laura and I are forever grateful for your help and steadfast commitment.
http://www.gop.com/images/mail/031008_bush_donate.jpg
As the 2008 elections draw closer, I ask for your continued support for our Party and our important principles. The outcome of these elections will set our nation's course for a generation.

The mission of every Republican must be to keep the White House and retake the U.S. House and Senate. We must elect a new Republican president in order to defend America and extend our nation's prosperity.

A Democrat victory in November would turn back the clock on all that we have accomplished to strengthen our national security, grow our economy and improve our schools.

The Republican National Committee is at the forefront of the effort to retain the White House. As the umbrella organization for the entire Republican Party, the RNC has the responsibility to give our candidates the maximum support they need to defeat the Democrats.

Vice President Cheney, Laura and I are doing everything we can to ensure the RNC has the resources to provide our candidates with the tools they need to build, strong effective campaigns.

Glenn, will you stand with us again by making a special 2008 campaign contribution to the Republican National Committee today?

Your special online gift of $1,000, $500, $100, $50 or $25 to the RNC will go a long way towards electing a Republican president, retaking control of Congress and regaining a majority of statehouses.

Your financial support of the Republican National Committee is essential to our success in November. The RNC is leading our Party's national campaign drive.

We must raise the millions of dollars that federal election law allows the RNC, and only the RNC, to expend directly on the presidential campaign after our Convention in Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota.

This is the only way grassroots Republicans like you can directly defend our nominee against Democrat attacks during the general election campaign. Having twice been the nominee, I can tell you how vital this assistance was to my own campaigns in 2000 and 2004. I would not have won election or re-election without the RNC's strong and effective efforts.

The RNC also provides Republican candidates at all levels with research, polling data, volunteer training, direct financial support -- and makes certain our vital voter identification, voter registration and get-out-the vote efforts are fully funded.

To keep these critical campaign programs moving forward, the RNC must raise $27.8 million in the first quarter of 2008. I hope you will make a special online campaign contribution of $1,000, $500, $100, $50 or $25 today to help reach that goal.

Glenn, our Party must win the 2008 elections to ensure the continued prosperity and security of our nation. I urge you to give as generously as you can.

Sincerely,
http://www.gop.com/images/gwbsig.gif
George W. Bush

P.S. Glenn, if we are to keep America moving forward and create a safer, more prosperous future, we must elect a Republican president and Congress in November. Please make a secure online contribution of $1,000, $500, $100, $50 or $25 to the RNC today to help reach the first quarter goal of $27.8 million. Thank you.

What, no mention of his attempts to further protect the phone companies from illegal wire taps?

That takes a lot of guts to stand shoulder to shoulder with him BTW.

What, no mention of his attempts to further protect the phone companies from illegal wire taps?

That takes a lot of guts to stand shoulder to shoulder with him BTW.
Is it guts or is it chutzpah?

LOL...So you're saying you're just going to go with the $25 contribution?


and not to take away from the fun y'all are having but I do agree with what he did on the wiretaps to keep us safe. You guys are eating up the Dem fear mongering that the US Gov't is listening in to your conversations. You guys are smarter than that.


BTW... Nice Avi Glenn

and not to take away from the fun y'all are having but I do agree with what he did on the wiretaps to keep us safe. You guys are eating up the Dem fear mongering that the US Gov't is listening in to your conversations. You guys are smarter than that.

If you agree with it you clearly don't know the whole story. Putting in wire taps is fine. What Bush did is beyond that. He granted them immunidty to illegal wire taps. Why would you need protection from illegal ones if you have permission to do them in the first place? The reason is because the republicans wanted a built in get out of jail free ticket for tapping whoever they want without reprecussions. The only way it would be an illegal tap is if there was no justification. And if there was none, then why tap?

It's like sending a soldier to Iraq with permission to kill, but then saying that all soldiers are immune to discipline from illegal killings. So they can just go out and murder civilians with no justification. It's rediculous. Bush basically eliminated the entire justice system as it applies to the wire taps.

BTW, yesterday he veteod an extension of the wire tapping because Congress didn't want to keep them immune from prosecution any longer. So he feels this is vital to our security, but not enough so to risk a lawsuit against a phone company.

He set up a program that he and his WH lawyers felt was permissable under the law, iirc, but gave them immunity if challenged and someone else said it was illegal.

its a gray area.

This is where it gets partisan, but I honestly feel the far left has a stronghold on the Dems and feel they want to go to court to expose our secrets, our technology and thus render it useless...again.

The Anti-war activists will try to destroy any weapon, high tech or otherwise they can.

The original FISA allowed wiretaps with resonable justification. What Bush wants is to have no need for justification at all. He wants the executive branch to operate outside the judicial branch, which is completely against the constitution. On top of that he wants complete immunity for Telcoms going backwards. Why would they need that now if they haven't committed any crimes?

What's wrong with demanding resonable justification?

Nothing is wrong with reasonable justification. And we have reasonable justification. They attacked us on 911 and have continued to try to attack us. And we have this cool technology that scans gazzilions bits of info that looks for certain digital flags. This isn't some guy in a basement of the CIA randomly listening in to conversations.

According to guy who runs the NSA, this programs has helped us and we need it.

The Dems don't want us to go to war, they want human intel and to use our technology so we don't have to go to war. Well here it is. We can isolate certain cells around the world and deal with them, but then the Dems cry foul here too, imo.

btw...the FISA law was somewhat outdated. The Dems(some of them) agree with that. But when Bush tried to use it in Iraq for those 3 captured soldiers, it was a delay that many say cost a life.

I have enough confidence, in whomever the country elects as Prez, to give the Executive some leeway to bypass the Judiciary in some cases. This is one of them.

I have enough confidence, in whomever the country elects as Prez, to give the Executive some leeway to bypass the Judiciary in some cases. This is one of them.

You see, there, to me, is the rub.

Bush has lost the right to have the benefit of the doubt, IMO.

I can see giving every incoming President a clean slate, but as the man said himself, "Fool me once...uh...fool me...you can't get fooled again."

This is where it gets partisan, but I honestly feel the far left has a stronghold on the Dems and feel they want to go to court to expose our secrets, our technology and thus render it useless...again.

The Anti-war activists will try to destroy any weapon, high tech or otherwise they can.
You've got to be kidding me. America is a country where the "far left" has never existed. The most liberal democrats I can think of - maybe Russ Feingold, for example - would be considered very conservative in nearly every other non-Islamic country. The famous Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn (who was assassinated) was gay as all get-out, stridently anti-religion, and pro-drug legalization, and he was considered conservative because of his stance on immigration - and his stance was that immigration should be restricted from countries who have more conservative opinions than theirs.

What's most disturbing to me is that you're slipping into a bad zone, believing that there are people who are public servants who are really trying to subvert national security. Respeck and everything, Tahoe, but that's just crazy. I'm what you'd call a radical pacifist, further left than any Democrat in office, and even I don't have any desire to weaken national security.

The point is this man: the FISA law was just fine as it was. It is not making anyone's life difficult by any means. The only reason to have a problem with it is if wiretapping any conversation you want and then asking for court orders after the fact, in bulk, is too much of a strain for you. The system is about as flexible as it could ever be. What the Executive Branch is trying to do is to break the system - to set a precedent in law that explicitly claims that they can do whatever they please without being responsible for the civil rights of anyone - that civil rights have nothing to do with federal law enforcement. That's the only reason to oppose the existing FISA law. I disagree. I think civil rights are most especially important as it pertains to law enforcement.

From my point of view, the Democratic Party is loaded with political compromisers and equivocators who don't oppose the Republicans nearly hard enough. I'm not saying you should line up with my point of view, but when you say that people in Congress or the Senate are secret militant leftists dedicated to subverting national security, you gotta know that's at least a little bit "Turner Diaries"-esque.

Let me state it again: FISA has never been responsible for a delay in anything. It does not require delays. You can wiretap whoever you want, and then ask for the court order weeks later. That's why FISA was passed - before FISA, you needed a court order in advance to wiretap any conversation. If that's not good enough, I really don't know what to tell you.

Code Pink, Moveon.org has a stronghold on some of the Dems. If you don't believe that, then agree to disagree.

FISA was not just fine. We have new technologies that need to be brought into the law. They (reasonable Dems and Rep) said some of the technology that was addressed in the law wasn't even used anymore.

You see, there, to me, is the rub.

Bush has lost the right to have the benefit of the doubt, IMO.

I can see giving every incoming President a clean slate, but as the man said himself, "Fool me once...uh...fool me...you can't get fooled again."

Mainly the leadup to the war stuff? Or just generally he's a liar or fucktard?

Liar seems a bit strong to me. Is there a difference between being a "liar" and being "dishonest"?

I can go along with fucktard, for sure, as well as having questionable ulterior motives for going to war. (other self interests, i.e. Daddy, big oil, etc)

I heard something the other day that gas was something like $1.24 when he took office, and now were sitting on the doorstep of $4.

He, his relatives and his buddies in big oil have struck it rich with this war, all on the lives of innocent American soldiers and the pocketbooks of the American people.

Just my opinion.

Liar seems a bit strong to me. Is there a difference between being a "liar" and being "dishonest"?

I can go along with fucktard, for sure, as well as having questionable ulterior motives for going to war. (other self interests, i.e. Daddy, big oil, etc)

I heard something the other day that gas was something like $1.24 when he took office, and now were sitting on the doorstep of $4.

He, his relatives and his buddies in big oil have struck it rich with this war, all on the lives of innocent American soldiers and the pocketbooks of the American people.

Just my opinion.

I just was listening to a debate about gas prices. The Dems 'promised' that if they were elected into the majority in Congress that they would bring gas prices down. They've went up.

Gas prices are supply and demand and the Dems won't let us tap any of our reserves to bring prices down. I think they just voted this morning on that.

re:bolded part. He may have, I don't know, but I believe his intent was to keep us safe. Getting rich wasn't his motivation, imo.

I realize that we're in a post 9/11 world, but when Bill the Dem left office, gas prices were not causing families to choose between filling up the car and buying groceries.

Again, I know things have changed in the global market and demand is up world-wide, but from energy policies that have been designed to protect big oil to GWB sticking his hand in the figurative till (again, just my opinion) to plain old mismanagement of Middle Eastern relations, it's been one fuck up after another and a lot of it could have been avoided.

Yes, India and China are huge buyers compared to where they were 10 years ago.

And I agree again, Wars generally don't help oil prices.

And I agree again, Wars generally don't help oil prices.

Depends on where you have your investments. :^)

Sorry for getting this a little off track, I don't usually do that.

We should really stick to discussion about McCain and the upcoming election, at least in this thread.

But all this stuff goes to who wins...so its close to being on topic.

I'm surprised McCain is tied with Hill and BO in nationwide polls with economy in a percieved recession, the war, etc.

btw...the FISA law was somewhat outdated. The Dems(some of them) agree with that. But when Bush tried to use it in Iraq for those 3 captured soldiers, it was a delay that many say cost a life.

I have enough confidence, in whomever the country elects as Prez, to give the Executive some leeway to bypass the Judiciary in some cases. This is one of them.

umm, links?

here is my understanding of whats going on... not exactly a lot of research done, lately.

bush asked the phone companies for their cooperation in what was a legally questionable issue. what this entailed was a legitimately disputable legal question. data mining records that are available to the public generally does not require a warrant... something along those lines.

ANYWAY, most phone companies cooperated, some did not (i believe). all bush is doing is trying to ensure that the companies that did cooperate are not held liable for an issue that had not been legally decided yet... personally, i think it would be unfair to hold these companies liable. i believe there were threats of repurcussion if they did not.

as far as the fisa stuff goes, i believe this was pretty much a ploy by rove. the system was fine, or if not, correctable. these fisa courts basically rubber stamped all warrants, and required only the lightest of justifications. further, the warrants could be attained 3 days after the fact. the need to remove fisa, to me, either ment that bush wanted wiretaps that went beyond the scope of what he suggested (political enemies?) or he was just playing politics (im strong on terror, the dems arent).

anyway, 9 more months and its adios to W.

anyway, 9 more months and its adios to W.
I think we can all agree that America screams at its TV a little less in 9 mos.

At least we weren't attacked

I realize that we're in a post 9/11 world, but when Bill the Dem left office, gas prices were not causing families to choose between filling up the car and buying groceries.

Again, I know things have changed in the global market and demand is up world-wide, but from energy policies that have been designed to protect big oil to GWB sticking his hand in the figurative till (again, just my opinion) to plain old mismanagement of Middle Eastern relations, it's been one fuck up after another and a lot of it could have been avoided.

The dollar also was worth something too.

The Executive branch doesn't set oil prices or the dollars worth. But whomever is in office when the economy is going bad, generally gets voted out.

All of this is why I'm surprised McCain is doing as well as he is (tied with both Dems).

I don't get it.

This is easy... it's because the Dems are beating each other up while McCain is having barbeques. The same dynamic happens every 4 years. I'll even tell you what happens next. Whoever wins will get a bounce in the polls, leading dipshit pundits to think that McCain doesn't have a prayer. Then it'll get a bit closer and the dipshit pundits will be surprised.

Republican whackjob hit on McCain from awhile back. Some is true, some isn't, but it gives you a flavor of what Republicans may swift boat their own with:

http://www.wcltam.com/news/special/articledetail.cfm?articleid=23261

This is easy... it's because the Dems are beating each other up while McCain is having barbeques. The same dynamic happens every 4 years. I'll even tell you what happens next. Whoever wins will get a bounce in the polls, leading dipshit pundits to think that McCain doesn't have a prayer. Then it'll get a bit closer and the dipshit pundits will be surprised.

Right, right.

I like that the Reps aren't peaking too soon. They should pull together about the time of the General. The Dems might not get all the 'mo' back they had during the primaries.

Hey! I got one, too!!!


Dear Denny,

During the last seven years, you have stood shoulder to shoulder with me to meet the challenges that faced our country.

Laura and I are forever grateful for your help and steadfast commitment.

On a personal note, I had the priviledge of watching you pitch one summer afternoon in 1970. Of course, your ability by then was not close to your world-beating season of 1968 , but the mere fact that I was watching you from a box seat, rather than fighting gooks from a cockpit, made the event all the more enjoyable.
http://www.gop.com/images/mail/031008_bush_donate.jpg
Back to the point in hand. As the 2008 erections draw closer, I ask for your continued support for our Party and our important principles. The outcome of these erections will set our nation's course for the white generation to come.

The mission of every Republican must be to keep the White House and butake the U.S. House and Senate. We must elect a new Republican president in order to defend America and extend our nation's prosperity, no matter how funny he might look with those stubby arms and elderly posture.

A Democrat victory in November would turn back the clock on all that we have accomplished to strengthen our national security, grow our economy and improve our schools. Simply imagining a black president takes me back to the days of Katrina, and reminds all of us the rightful, and wrongful, place of blacks in our society.

The Republican National Committee is at the forefront of the effort to retain the White House. As the umbrella organs of nation for the entire Republican Party, the RNC has the responsibility to give our candidates the maximum support they need to defeat the Democrats.

Dick, Laura and I are doing everything we can to ensure the RNC has the resources to provide our candidates with the toys they need to build, strong effective campaigns.

Denny, will you stand with us again by making a special 2008 campaign contribution to the Republican National Committee today? Also, I'd love if you can sign a baseball for me (inclosed). Return postage paid for by every baseball-loving American.

Your special online gift of $1,000, $500, $100, $50 or $25 to the RNC will go a long way towards erecting a Republican president, butaking control of Congress and regaining a majority of steakhouses.

Your financial support of the Republican National Committee is essential to our success in November. The RNC is leading our Party's national campaign drive.

We must raise the millions of dollars that federal erection law allows the RNC, and only the RNC, to expend directly on the presidential campaign after our Convention in Minneapolis or St. Paul, Minnesota.

This is the only way grassroots Republicans like you can directly defend our nominee against Democrat attacks during the general erection campaign. Having twice been the nominee, I can tell you how vital this assistance was to my own campaigns in 2000 and 2005. I would not have won erection or re-erection without the RNC's strong and effective efforts.

The RNC also provides Republican candidates at all levels with research, polling data, volunteer training, direct financial support, sexual affirmation -- and makes certain our vital voter identification, voter registration and get-out-the vote efforts are fully funded.

To keep these critical campaign programs moving forward, the RNC must raise $27.8 million in the first quarter of 2008. I hope you will make a special online campaign contribution of $1,000, $500, $100, $50 or $25 today to help reach that goal.

Denny, our Party must win the 2008 erections to insure the continued prosperity and security of our nation. I urge you to give as generously as you can.

Sincerely,
http://www.gop.com/images/gwbsig.gif

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/03/18/a_mccain_gaffe_in_jordan.html


AMMAN, Jordan -- Sen. John McCain, traveling in the Middle East to promote his foreign policy expertise, misidentified in remarks Tuesday which broad category of Iraqi extremists are allegedly receiving support from Iran.

He said several times that Iran, a predominately Shiite country, was supplying the mostly Sunni militant group, al-Qaeda. In fact, officials have said they believe Iran is helping Shiite extremists in Iraq.

Speaking to reporters in Amman, the Jordanian capital, McCain said he and two Senate colleagues traveling with him continue to be concerned about Iranian operatives "taking al-Qaeda into Iran, training them and sending them back."

Pressed to elaborate, McCain said it was "common knowledge and has been reported in the media that al-Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran, that's well known. And it's unfortunate." A few moments later, Sen. Joseph Lieberman, standing just behind McCain, stepped forward and whispered in the presidential candidate's ear. McCain then said: "I'm sorry, the Iranians are training extremists, not al-Qaeda."

Both McCain and Huckabee have made generally supportive statements regarding Obama's "race speech".

And Hillary said she didn't see it. Quit riding the fence Hillary. Is this an issue to you or not.

Ron Paul has been benefiting from caucus states by having his shit together.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/03/the-ron-paul-re.html

McCain giving a speech on the economy. SNL needs to copy this. They really wouldn't have to do that much to the speach and it'd be funny.

McCain...It was hard to get a leader and borrower together. Lieberman wasn't there to whisper in his ear...Lender...Lender.

Well, he's definately a better speaker than Bush at least...

And we know McCain has at least 3 peeps supporting him.

MaP9eiWuX3s

That video was sultry.

http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh132/jentrant/mcbush-2008.jpg

http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh132/jentrant/mcbush-2008.jpg

That's creeping me out, fwiw.

Yea Mxy, just post videos of sultry bitches singing.

How about sultry possible-VP candidates for McCain?

http://uberdesi.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/palin_sarah.jpg

NF5Kdm4Eu6w

When did The Onion start making videos?

The "Number One Issue for Voters", is funny.

McCain girls are back

WqiWrKkILOU&eurl

I thought Republicans had money.

Team McCain misspelled John McCain as JohM McCain in one of their ads:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=cmbtbNw_R5Q

http://bp3.blogger.com/_WFYQWi4zsb4/R_z6HkxTv1I/AAAAAAAABB4/DqjM43AYcQk/s400/SP32-20080409-131444.gif

I'm not sure if this is a hit piece or not , but citing Reagan positively as a response to a question about balancing the budget is probably a bad idea:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/09/asked-about-the-economy-mccain-cites-reagans-example/

REAGANOMICS!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080414/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_the_conservative

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/04/military_mccain_petraeus_041408w/

http://www.seriouseats.com/required_eating/2008/04/cindy-mccain-allegedly-lifting-recipes-from-food-network-giada-de-laurentiis.html

Thats the kind of shit we need to focus on right there Mxy...17 Great stuff.

McCain released his tax returns. 323k in Senate salary, 253k in book sales (he donated all royalties to charities) and 40K from Social Security. lol on the SS part.

It's easy to be generous when you're married to a rich heiress sugar mama. It's good work if you can get it... said the same thing about Kerry.

The reaction (or relative lack thereof) to McCain's gas tax proposal amuses me:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/04/17/mccain_introduces_gax_tax_legi.html?hpid=topnews

Had this been a Democratic plan, conservatives would've come out swinging against this. "You mean, he's gonna raise taxes just a couple months later? THIS IS A TAX HIKE!!!".

There may be a germ of a good idea here in seasonal gas taxation, to dull the edge off seasonal peaks and valleys. But I wouldn't trust either major party to do something like that.

McCain released his tax returns. 323k in Senate salary, 253k in book sales (he donated all royalties to charities) and 40K from Social Security. lol on the SS part.

Hillary Clinton bullshit award: McCain says his wife (who's worth $100 mil+) need not release her taxes because 'she needs to protect her children'.

John Kerry's wife didn't release her tax returns, either.

McCain Co. has now conflated a bullshit connection between Al Qaeda and Iran three times.

on Hugh Hewitt's show



in Jordan:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23710761#23710761 (]http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/talkradio/transcripts/Transcript.aspx?ContentGuid=ae522a49-6c82-4791-a76e-44ebb718bf32[/URL)

in a written statement to the New York Sun




At Patreaus hearings

[URL=]http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120769832815099763.html?mod=special_page_campaig n2008_leftbox (]http://www2.nysun.com/article/73277[/URL)

These continued "misstatements" are earily familiar to the conflation between iraq and Al-Qaeda, but of course we must take McCain's word that he has complete mastery of the situation and would never intentionally conflate iran and al qaeda to score political points because he is very serious and honorable. In fact, he is so serious and honorable that he sang a catchy little song about bombing Iran.

[URL=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-zoPgv_nYg

His little song was not condescending to our troops at all. Neither was his opposition to a bipartisan bill that would increase GI Bill education benefits for war verterans. He says he doesn't want to create incentives for people to leave the military. If this isn't the height rank condescention, I don't what is.

"The Bush administration so far has resisted Webb’s measure, and has said the new benefits may prompt active members of the military to leave for civilian life. The Pentagon is already struggling with re-enlistment, and some officials worry expanded educational benefits could whittle down the force."

So McCain thinks it would be funny to bomb iran and giving real support rather than hot air to the troops is a bad idea. Finally, we get to the brilliant insight of McCain into into Iraq. This man either has no clue about the Middle East is blatantly lying to the American people. Either way keep him the fuck out of the White House.

“And I believe that the success will be fairly easy.” [CNN, Larry King Live, 9/24/02]

“I believe that we can win an overwhelming victory in a very short period of time.” [CNN Late Edition, 9/29/02]

“Do you believe that the people of Iraq or at least a large number of them will treat us as liberators?” “Absolutely. Absolutely,” replied McCain. [MSNBC, Hardball, 3/12/03]

“There’s no doubt in my mind that once these people are gone that we will be welcomed as liberators.” [MSNBC, Hardball, 3/24/03]

John Kerry's wife didn't release her tax returns, either.

Well, John Kerry was also a terrible candidate. Kerry and McCain are really cut from the same cloth of dumping their first wives for much wealthier second wives.

Hunh? Kerry was dumped by his first wife, who didn't want to be a political wife anymore and was clinically depressed. He didn't hook up with his second wife or get remarried until several years afterwards.

By contrast, McCain dumped his first wife, a model who got ugly because of an auto accident, and married a rich hottie after going through a bunch of strippers. I'm amazed that his first wife hasn't come up more.

Hunh? Kerry was dumped by his first wife, who didn't want to be a political wife anymore and was clinically depressed. He didn't hook up with his second wife or get remarried until several years afterwards.

By contrast, McCain dumped his first wife, a model who got ugly because of an auto accident, and married a rich hottie after going through a bunch of strippers. I'm amazed that his first wife hasn't come up more.

Give it time.

It seems I was wrong about Kerry's first wife and I will own up to that. I have a (perhaps irrational) bias about politicians that marry into money. It just seems rather shady to me, but I confess that it would be entirely possible that the politician and big $ spouse could truely be in love.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/19/AR2008041902224.html

^ Saw that.

I don't think the specific stories will carry much weight without a tape. We live in the youtube era. We'll see though. As far as a general 'JM is a hot head' is something he'll have to deal with.

Someplace in one of these threads I said, he'll show his temper, at least once, when the general starts.

I don't know. McCain is one of these guys who gives me the impression that he's already at the point in his life where his temper is cooling off (mainly because everything else is falling apart).

It looks like Ron Paul crossed the 15% threshhold in Pennsylvania and will get awarded delegates. Huckabee got another 10+%. Pennsylvania doesn't have significant early voting, so it appears that 200+k Reps went out of their way to vote for someone else yesterday.

http://www.electionreturns.state.pa.us/

I think the Republicans feel a lot more comfortable running against BO then they did a month ago. He can't seem to win the white blue collar vote.

It's white women blue collar, really. Amongst white men blue collar, it's much closer. There's a disproportionate amount of "blue collar" white women since they get paid 80 cents to the dollar.

Neither Obama nor Hillary is likely to retain a majority of white men against McCain, and that would be true for a white male Democrat. The key is -- will white women gravitate to McCain if Obama is the candidate?

McCain's judgement on things concern me sometimes.

He makes a deal out of the NC Rep add where they have Rev Wright. While I'm sure JM does think its messed up that they made the add, its nothing that everyone hasn't seen a ton of times. And he sets the precedent to comment on every add that some state party makes. So if he misses some stupid add in Montana, then he will it will be assumed that he agrees with that add. DUMB

But heres the deal for me. Then he goes out and makes a deal out of Hamas endorsing BO?

So on one hand, he condemns the add and acts all self righteous, then turns around and makes a deal out of Hamas endorsing BO? Ridiculous.

BO can't control who the fuck endorses him.

McCain's judgement on things concern me sometimes.

He makes a deal out of the NC Rep add where they have Rev Wright. While I'm sure JM does think its messed up that they made the add, its nothing that everyone hasn't seen a ton of times. And he sets the precedent to comment on every add that some state party makes. So if he misses some stupid add in Montana, then he will it will be assumed that he agrees with that add. DUMB

But heres the deal for me. Then he goes out and makes a deal out of Hamas endorsing BO?

So on one hand, he condemns the add and acts all self righteous, then turns around and makes a deal out of Hamas endorsing BO? Ridiculous.

BO can't control who the fuck endorses him.

For once, I agree with you 100%. I moved to NC a couple years ago and the state govt. ads are always rediculous on both sides. The state is still making amends with the Jessie Helms-type ghosts of its past. In the meantime, demographics are rapidly shifting to a much different state. In the district next to mine, the republicans ran a black guy that made the most rediculous ads I have ever heard. First of all the guy referred to himself as the black jesse helms as if that makes any sense. Then, he accused his democratic opponent of being gay because he didn't have any children. At some point, the dem got tired of it and revealed that his wife had to get a historectomy because of cancer. Dem ads typically focus on whomever can be painted as more corrupt no matter how petty the charge. Anyways, the country is better off just ignoring nc ads. mccain, dean, and BO should chide the media for making such a big deal about the ads and then refuse to discuss them further.

Anyways, I also agree about the Hamas stuff. If you start defining opponents based on what terrorists say, you give the terrorists a voice in our govt plus you increase the amount of propaganda that terrorists can use against us. I've read a number of articles that suggest the the most extreme terrorists (al qaeda types) are huge Bush fans. Their primary agenda is an Islamic uprising against the current leaders. Anything that promotes their agenda of defining the west as culturally bankrupt and willing to sell their souls for oil is a huge recruitment boost for them. They were 100% happy about the Iraq invasion. I personally think energy independence should be our no. 1 policy goal rather than securing oil supplies. The more we pay for oil, the more terrorists get from their tycoon buddies in Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait. Plus, the more we enrich Iran. The huge profits also reinforce the assymmetric wealth distribtuitions in those countries which lead to greater disenfranchisement and terrorist recruitment.

Let them eat cake:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/133551

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ilIP7AbdEKhZxq_I6GE25dKftNYwD90ABL380

Interesting that 2/3 of Israelis want ongoing negotiations with Hamas, yet repubs go batshit insane at the mere thought. It is time for grown-ups to work on foreign policy in the middle east. no more "bomb, bomb, iran" or unqualified boasts to be "Hamas' worst nightmare". I thought we got past this after the rediculous bush boast "bring it on". After which it was brought and iraq descended into chaos.

http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/958473.html

Note that BO hasn't even suggested that he would talk to Hamas. He just hasn't vowed to be Hamas' worst nightmare like the candidate with "vast" foreign policy experience. Of course, this type of analysis is far too nuanced for the sound-byte media to comprehend. Instead, we have to hear every last wright utterance or why an education prof in chicago is such a threat to the country as we know it.

Let's not discuss the dirty little secret of why so many Republicans are pro-Israel.

Let them eat cake:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/133551


IF YOU CAME UP WITH THAT QUOTE, THAT'S HILARIOUS!

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ilIP7AbdEKhZxq_I6GE25dKftNYwD90ABL380

UGH. YUP, THAT'S IT GUYS, LET'S PORTRAY OURSELVES AS FRINGE LOONIES, TRYING TO UNDERMINE AN ESTABLISHED COALITION AS OPPOSED TO BURROWING IN AND POSITIVLY INFLUENCING POLICY.

Wanna meet McCain?

http://www.johnmccain.com/ste/eventrsvp.aspx?guid=261afe7f-cae4-4bc5-b2d1-454489b856b9

Double standards?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/04/opinion/04rich.html?em&ex=1210132800&en=e5d5126f1b93ece3&ei=5087%0A

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/05/roland.martin.05.05/index.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/09/us/politics/09donate.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&ref=us&adxnnlx=1210332420-h3bVukEry+wRA5G2COWRAQ

Ron Paul making mischief... gotta love it:

http://www.idahostatesman.com/newsupdates/story/377849.html

Ron Paul is working his ass off to ensure that no Libertarian-leaning politician will ever be taken seriously again.

Ron Paul is working his ass off to ensure that no Libertarian-leaning politician will ever be taken seriously again.
He wants to fix the Republican party. It's unclear to me why he doesn't simply run as a Libertarian and be done with it.

Safe to say the licks are taking the libertarian schism very, very seriously.

Safe to say the licks are taking the libertarian schism very, very seriously.
Are you serious? They're trying to bury it. When you take something seriously, you deal with it face to face. Right-wing libertarianism has always been really funny though, so I hope it doesn't work, because I like the entertainment.

Yeah, that sounds like the Taliban wing of the Republican party when they disagree with something. Sit down, rantionally discuss, and come to a logical medium. Maybe we'll start with discussing, face to face, religion in schools. Then, spending on military activities and their costs, and it's burdens on our economy. That should be productive.

I'm a left wing libertarian, but at least I can respect the principals, however hypocritical at times.

http://www.johnmccain.com/images/email/fromthedeskofjsm.jpg

My Friends,

We are all aware that next January, the political leadership of the United States will change significantly when a new president is sworn into our nation's highest elected office. It is important that the candidates who seek to lead our country after President Bush define their objectives and what they plan to achieve not with vague language but with clarity.

What I want to do is take a little time to describe what I hope to have achieved at the end of my first term as president. I cannot guarantee I will have achieved these things, but I am presumptuous enough to think I would be a good president.

By January 2013, at the end of my first term as president, America has welcomed home most of the servicemen and women who have sacrificed terribly so that America might be secure in her freedom. The Iraq War has been won and Iraq is a functioning democracy. The threat from a resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan has been greatly reduced but not eliminated and there has not been a major terrorist attack in the United States since September 11, 2001.

The United States has experienced several years of robust economic growth and Americans again have confidence in their economic future. Congress has lowered taxes and passed fundamental tax reform offering a choice in how taxes are filed. Americans, who through no fault of their own, lost jobs in the global economy they once believed were theirs for life, are assisted by reformed unemployment insurance and worker retraining programs.

Public education in the United States is much improved and test scores and graduation rates are rising everywhere in the country. Health care has become more accessible to more Americans than at any other time in history.

The United States is well on the way to independence from foreign sources of oil; progress that has not only begun to alleviate the environmental threat posed from climate change, but has greatly improved our security as well.

Scores of judges have been confirmed to the federal district and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, who understand that they were not sent there to write our laws but to enforce them.

Voluntary national service has grown in popularity in part because of the educational benefits used as incentives, as well as frequent appeals from the bully pulpit of the White House, but mostly because the young Americans understand that true happiness is much greater than the pursuit of pleasure, and can only be found by serving causes greater than self-interest.

This is the progress I want us to achieve during my presidency. These are the changes I am running for president to make. I want to leave office knowing that America is safer, freer and wealthier than when I was elected.

There are serious issues at stake in this election, and serious differences, but it should remain an argument among friends; each of us struggling to hear our conscience, and heed its demands. Each of us, despite our differences, united in our great cause and respectful of the goodness in each other. That is how most Americans treat each other. And it is how they want the people they elect to office to treat each other.

We cannot again leave our problems for another unluckier generation of Americans to fix after they have become even harder to solve. I'm not interested in partisanship that serves no other purpose than to gain a temporary advantage over our opponents. We are all compatriots. We are fellow Americans. I intend to prove myself worthy of the office, of our country and of your respect. I won't judge myself by how many elections I've won. I won't spend one hour of my presidency worrying more about my re-election than keeping my promises to the American people.

And now, I call on you to do your part in making this vision a reality. I am not presumptuous enough to think that I will be elected our next president without your help, and I humbly ask you today to make a contribution to my campaign of any amount to ensure my campaign is fully funded and able to take my message and vision directly to every American voter.

Sincerely,

http://www.johnmccain.com/images/email/mccainsig_150_0408.jpg
John McCain

P.S. There are serious issues at stake in this election, and serious differences between the candidates. We will argue about them, as we should. If I am elected president, I will work with anyone who sincerely wants to get this country moving again. But I must be elected in November to do this, and that is why I ask that you join me by making a financial contribution so that my campaign can be fully funded to win in November. Thank you.

From the Desk of John McCain- Where fantasy happens!

Let Paul speak at the Repub convention for chrissakes. Yes, he has views that are other than the typical Repub, but if you can't handle a lil outside the box thinking, then fuck you.

Let Paul speak at the Repub convention for chrissakes. Yes, he has views that are other than the typical Repub, but if you can't handle a lil outside the box thinking, then fuck you.
The last time the RNC let a significant competitor speak, Reagan blew Ford out of the water. I can't imagine Ron Paul being allowed to speak unless he agreed to not speak about the war.

http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/05/18/0518paul.html

http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2008/05/19/daily77.html?surround=lfn

Awesome! Bob Dole calls out Scotty McClellan for being the total piece of shit that he is.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/30/dole-calls-mcclellan-a-miserable-creature/

How dare he claim that a fellow Republican is "spurred on by greed"?

Well, people did tell him over and over again that his bosses were lying to him. I don't feel very sorry for him. He could have done everyone (including the Republican party) a favor by calling them out on it.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/05/30/mccain_asserts_return_to_presu.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/28/AR2008052802967_pf.html

McCain Ftw

McCain Ftw
McCain ABTTIRELDHOSS
Actually Believes That The Iraq War Ends Like Die Hard Or Some Shit

What?

super secret white text

9DqR7zis99I

This was made by a Ron Paul fan, not a Dem:
IlX9l1g1ZE0

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-06-10-paul-convention_N.htm


Paul campaign puts plans in place for alternate convention

AUSTIN (AP) — Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul has tentatively reserved a university arena in Minnesota, a school spokesman said Tuesday, as the campaign plans a separate gathering during the national GOP convention in September.

"We plan on having a large rally," said Paul spokesman Jesse Benton. "We want it to be a celebration of Republican values and what the Republican Party has traditionally stood for."

But Benton also said Paul wants to send a message to the GOP "that we need to return to our roots" of limited government and personal responsibility.

The day-long event Sept. 2 will feature musicians, guest speakers and Paul himself, said Benton, who said he couldn't yet disclose the entertainers' names or predict how many people would attend.

University of Minnesota spokesman Dan Wolter confirmed in an e-mail that the Paul campaign has a hold on Williams Arena in Minneapolis, Minn., for Sept. 2, when Republicans will be meeting in nearby St. Paul.

"Nothing has been finalized at this point and we don't have a contract," Wolter said. "But details are being discussed."

Benton said Williams Arena is one of the 10,000-plus capacity venues under consideration.

He said the event isn't meant to detract from presumptive Republican nominee John McCain or the Republican Party. That's why it's being held the Tuesday of the convention week, before McCain's vice presidential pick speaks Wednesday and McCain speaks to the convention Thursday, Benton said.

"Our doors are open. We're all friends," he said.

Supporters of the Texas congressman have been pushing for him, unsuccessfully, to have a speaking role at the national Republican convention.

They've made stands on his behalf at state Republican conventions around the country and have fought to secure delegates for him, though he has few. His supporters are expected to be vocal again when the Texas Republican Party convention begins Thursday in Houston.

Paul does not have an official speaking role at the Texas convention, either, but will be introduced with others from the state's congressional delegation. Paul is to speak at a rally near the convention hall the opening night of the state meeting.

Meanwhile, a group of Texas Republican activists coordinated by Paul supporter Debra Medina of Wharton County has been waging a court battle before the convention to try to force a debate of challenges to convention delegates.

The group claims there were election law violations in choosing about 200 local delegates around the state and alleges state party leaders aren't interested in following the rules governing the convention.

"It appears their only interest is maintaining control," Medina said.

Yeah, I saw that. Interesting... And peculiar since I had just gotten finished watching a couple of Ron Paul youtube vids.

^ If he can't get a speaking gig at the GOP, then go for it. I hope he ruffles some feathers.