Obama is a far left crypto-fascist, with little or no deviation from the record of catering to the motley collection of leftist special interest groups that comprise the Democratic Party. But at least those of us with an IQ over normal know where he stands.

Hillary, according to Ignatius, has displayed some “bipartisanship,” but he curiously doesn’t cite the issues on which she has done so — could it be that voting for the Iraq war was her most notable instance of “reaching across the aisle?”

Ah, and then there’s John McCain, who never held a belief he wasn’t willing to negotiate: McCain/Feingold, the “Gang of 14,” and McCain/Kennedy (commonly known as Shamnesty) being his most stellar Senatorial “bipartisan” achievements to gain the admiration of liberals everywhere. In the wings, and sure to win the support of the Washington Post, et al, is McCain/Lieberman (called for implementation of “Kyoto-lite” energy restrictions on the U.S. economy) and McCain/whoever-wants-to-silence-talk-radio via the Fairness Doctrine, (because, um, St. John’s “bipartisanship” is not faring too well in that media).

So we have three candidates: one who’s uncompromisingly hard-core left; one who’s compromised with the right on perhaps one or two issues; and one who would sell conservative/constitutional values down the river to gain the admiration of the left.

Are we happy yet?

I didn’t know you spoke for the American people.

Look at the election results. Edwards, Mr. We-Must-Confront-The-Evil-GOP, lost badly. Romney, the “true” conservative, lost badly. The three left standing are bipartisan/compromisers, at least in what they’re selling to the electorate. SShark is right, campaigning as an absolutist may be ideologically satisfying, but this year its also a great way to get beat like a drum.

John McCain has the clearest record of bipartisanship and of pressing for change in Washington politics. Granted, that hasn’t made many in his party very happy with him, but McCain has had the courage to take those risks.

“Courage” is not the word I would use.

I’m with other commenters who believe it will evaporate the moment Hillary suspends her campaign.

Limerick on March 2, 2008 at 11:29 AM

Ja, once Obama dispatches Hillary the MSM will be gans stepping for Herr Obama big zeit.

Eins, zwei, drei, vier, alle loben der Messias.

How about national security?? It would seem that a true bi-partisan approach to national security would recognize a threat and unite all around the old adage – leave politics at the ocean’s edge. What is a bi-partisan position regarding unqualified talks with overt enemies? What about a bi-partisan approach to climate change??

Does anybody foresee Obama reaching out to the opposite views on any of these issues with the intent to incorporate some of their views while modifying some of his?? I don’t think so…

Not anymore though

Dos bits, cuatro bits, seis bits, a peso
All for Senor Juan stand up and say so!

VinyFoxy on March 2, 2008 at 2:01 PM

Ha its stupid, off topic and adds nothing to the conversation, like most MDS crap.

Could it be because those accomplishments don’t exist?

McCain has had the courage to take those risks. He has demonstrated leadership and action for change, and has paid the price for it at times.

And don’t think that I am not agradeciendo of my poco perros esfuerzos.

Not exactly Profiles in Courage material.

snaggletoothie on March 2, 2008 at 10:24 AM

Oh, come now, snaggletoothie. He has gone way out on the limb countless times in the past five years to vote “present” on the toughest issues of our time.

On the rare occasions that he has actually cast a yes or no vote, it was automatically knee-jerk liberal Dem, but no matter…

Obama is the milk chocolate Latte Slick Willie.

With the yummy Marxist-lite filling.

profitsbeard on March 2, 2008 at 11:26 AM

With indulgence, hopefully.

Obama cojones? Ping-pong balls weight is more likely.

To JiangxiDad’s point/s on bi-partisanship – synergy is when we all go under together.

They describe someone with an extraordinary ability to work across racial lines

So, does the Obamessiah see everything in terms of the color of the skin?

McCain is at his best when he’s on the railing against earmarks. That should be one of his main focus points for now.

ninjapirate on March 2, 2008 at 12:49 PM

I agree. It would certainly help close ranks.

Just stick to the fact that Obama is pretty words with no substance or just another empty suit, but please leave out the “bipartisanship” stuff. It’s the bipartisanship junk that makes me not like or trust McCain.

If people are inspired by his words and you sit back saying “no substance, empty suit” then they will think you are evading and that you are a “no substance, empty suit” person.

McCain has to call him on his BS and show that his call of unity is a mirage. If anyone is the unity or bipartison candidate here, McCain is it. He first has to kill Obama’s mirage before showing that Obama wants to take the country hard left.

There is plenty of time to rally the base. McCain is at his best when he’s on the railing against earmarks. That should be one of his main focus points for now.

Seems ‘change’ is only needed when it leads to more benefits for corrupt Dem politicians.

The American people (with the exception of a few moonbats) are
tired of this kind of crap.

Squid Shark on March 2, 2008 at 12:24 PM

I didn’t know you spoke for the American people. Credentials? And, disliking bipartisan efforts like No Child Left Behind, the Senior Prescription Drug boondangle, McCain-Feingold, and Shamnesty, categorize us as moonbats? Do tell.

The widespread corruption in Chicago and Springfield was something that should have been fought by a supposed ‘reformer’ like Obama. But he, like so many Daley Dems, chose not only to look away, but to rub elbows and do business with those who were deeply involved in corruption.

He was never a leader in Springfield. He was in fact, just another ambitious politician, who skated by on the fact that he was in a safe seat, and would unlikely ever be defeated either in a Primary, or a General election.

His excuse of his numerous ‘Present’ votes is laughable. The fact that it was a supposed ‘tactic’, never addresses that he didn’t take strong stands in the state Senate.

He promises more pay to teachers (How that is a function of the Federal government should be a red flag.), but while in the Illinois Senate, he helped create the huge financial mess regarding the teachers’ pension fund. He helped maintain the status quo and voted along with the rest of Dem party (beholden to the teachers union) to ‘kick the can’ down the road.

Where was Obama’s ‘leadership’? Illinois is facing gigantic financial problems, and Obama instead of tackling them in Springfield, decided that he wanted to go to Washington. Now only after a couple of years in the US Senate, he has decided that he wants to be President. A man who is just another loyal soldier to the Chicago political machine; just another ‘yes man’, is being touted by the MSM as being worthy of becoming the leader of the free world.

Be afraid..be very afraid.