Wow: Public now almost evenly split on timetable for withdrawal

posted at 7:44 pm on July 14, 2008 by Allahpundit

50/49 in favor per the new ABC/WaPo poll, within the three-point margin of error. There’s no prior data on the specific question of a 16-month timetable to compare it to, but given the trend on whether significant progress is being made, it’s safe to say Obama’s pullout advantage ain’t what it used to be:

abc002.jpg

I don’t know what to make of it. It’s in line with what Quinnipiac recently found in four battleground states, with clear majorities opposing a timetable in each, but it runs counter to national polls taken in June by CNN, Pew, and Time magazine, in which majorities answered yes to variations on a question about supporting withdrawal as soon as possible without regard to Iraq’s stability. Are ABC/WaPo and Quinnipiac catching the first sign of a breaking wave in public opinion? I don’t know how else to explain it, except that the more articles like this there are on the wires, the less catalyzing Maverick’s “100 years” comment is going to seem.

Here’s a little morsel tucked into ABC’s analysis for which partisan data is conspicuously not supplied:

On Afghanistan, however, independents side more closely with Republicans than with Democrats. Majorities of Republicans and independents think the war in Afghanistan was worth fighting and that the effort there is linked to the eventual defeat of terrorism more broadly. Majorities of Democrats disagree.

The split on whether the war was worth fighting is 51/45 and the split on whether victory is necessary is 51/42. Assuming (safely) that large majorities of Republicans answered yes to both questions, just how large are the majorities of Democrats who are now saying no? Exit question: In light of the fact that Obama’s main justification in withdrawing from Iraq is to redeploy to where the “real war on terror” is being fought, has anyone bothered telling him yet that his own supporters evidently no longer think we should be fighting there?

Update: Forgot to mention, answering “yes” to whether the candidate would be a good commander-in-chief: McCain 72, Obama 48.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

In light of the fact that Obama’s main justification in withdrawing from Iraq is to redeploy to where the “real war on terror” is being fought, has anyone bothered telling him yet that his own supporters evidently no longer think we should be fighting there?

When has he ever listened to his supporters? I mean, like the women he back talked too after they asked him a simple question? Or those that he said clung to their guns and religon? Makes ya wonder!

upinak on July 14, 2008 at 7:47 PM

In light of the fact that Obama’s main justification in withdrawing from Iraq is to redeploy to where the “real war on terror” is being fought, has anyone bothered telling him yet that his own supporters evidently no longer think we should be fighting there?

They know it’s a lie. It’s a wink-wink lie between them. They’ve all said it all along, so they don’t hear it or hold it against him.

Typhoon on July 14, 2008 at 7:48 PM

Negotiations with the Maliki government for an agreement on the status of US forces in Iraq have apparently been abandoned because the Iraqis demanded a time table for us to withdraw. Iraq’s insistence on a withdrawal schedule must trigger a re-assessment not only of our support for the Iraqi government but – much more importantly – our goals in this war.

Maliki’s insistence on a date for withdrawal of US troops, publicized earlier this month, caused President Bush to order our negotiators to be “more flexible.” But the flexibility had limits. The President and our military commanders have always insisted that the facts on the ground – Iraq’s ability to defend itself principal among them – would dictate when and how US forces would leave.

Last week, the President announced that our withdrawal could be accelerated. But that was not enough. According to a Washington Post report, Iraqi National Security Advisor Mowaffak al-Rubaie said, “There should not be any permanent bases in Iraq unless these bases are under Iraqi control,” adding, “We would not accept any memorandum of understanding with [the U.S.] side that has no obvious and specific dates for the foreign troops’ withdrawal from Iraq.”

Since the 2003 invasion, the President has said our goal in Iraq is for that nation to be capable of self-defense, self-government, self-sustainment and to be an ally in the war against terrorism. This goal – to build a democracy in Iraq – is a false one, and it has become unattainable.

We went to war against Saddam Hussein’s regime because we believed – in good faith – that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and was sponsoring terrorism. The first casus belli was wrong. The second was manifestly correct. We didn’t go to war because Iraq wasn’t a democracy: we went to war because we believed that Saddam’s regime was a threat to America and its interests in the Middle East.

But the President defined our goal in Iraq incorrectly. He said that our goal in Iraq was a nation that could defend, sustain and govern itself, and be an ally in the larger war against terrorism. He adopted the neocon democracy-building nostrum as America’s goal in the war and Iraq became a self-imposed quagmire.

Time and again, when I asked senior administration officials about our tolerance of Syrian and Iranian interference, the only answer I got was that we weren’t prepared to go to war against those nations, as if that were the only option. And so we sit in Iraq, taking actions that are self-defeating because they are self-limited.

By demanding withdrawal of American forces, Iraq has made it clear that it will not be an ally in the war against the terror-sponsoring nations. Concomitantly, who rules Iraq is not our business, unless it again chooses to join the terror-sponsors.
- Jed Babbin

Time to rethink Iraq

MB4 on July 14, 2008 at 7:50 PM

Nice!

Grafted on July 14, 2008 at 7:52 PM

timetable is FINE!!!!!!!!!!

as long as it’s CONDITIONS-BASED
not calender based

Even Obama’s own website is saying it has to be condition’s based now (‘course, they pretend like he’s always been on that idea).

scottm on July 14, 2008 at 7:52 PM

The polls are all over the map. When people start paying attention the McCain numbers will firm up even more, and the slight hint of the Hillary cackle will begin to crescendo across America.

SouthernGent on July 14, 2008 at 7:53 PM

good news all around IMO.

The media has tried to bury the sucess in Iraq. if 51% of the people still think the “war is lost” the media is still doing a great job. As more news leaks out the 51% number should go down and the others should go up. If McCain explains again and again how BHO was wrong on all counts with the war including Afganistain then BHO may fizzle faster then I thought he would.

unseen on July 14, 2008 at 7:53 PM

MB4..

Maliki…did he?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7504571.stm

Limerick on July 14, 2008 at 7:54 PM

Public opinion changes so fast, doesn’t it?

terryannonline on July 14, 2008 at 7:56 PM

Public opinion changes so fast, doesn’t it?

terryannonline on July 14, 2008 at 7:56 PM

another reason why pure democracy is not the way to run a country.

unseen on July 14, 2008 at 7:57 PM

Obama redeploying his opinions… will have new stance by tomorrow.

OBANANAS ’08.

profitsbeard on July 14, 2008 at 7:58 PM

***Public Interest ALERT***

WATCH out, Obama’s bus driver has been spotted drinking again..

If the bus hits someone don’t worry it’s not Obama’s fault, even though the was told the guy was drunk.. (Obama said that the bus driver is NOT the guy that he used to know)

Chakra Hammer on July 14, 2008 at 8:03 PM

MB4 on July 14, 2008 at 7:50 PM

That was based on reports that Maliki demanded a timetable for withdrawal. That was inaccurate, as BBC has learned listening to the actual audio.

amerpundit on July 14, 2008 at 8:06 PM

There’s nothing so successful like success.

carbon_footprint on July 14, 2008 at 8:12 PM

Update: Forgot to mention, answering “yes” to whether the candidate would be a good commander-in-chief: McCain 72, Obama 48.

So, what, something like 10-20% of Obama’s support is coming from people who think he would NOT make a good commander-in-chief?

Seriously?

Is this like the “Athiests that believe in God” thing?

apollyonbob on July 14, 2008 at 8:12 PM

scottm has it…

Let’s ask the poll question like this….

“Should the withdrawal from Iraq be based on conditions or the ground or politics.”

80%(+) would say conditions on the ground.

Diogenes of Sinope on July 14, 2008 at 8:17 PM

My older son is a U.S. Army First Lieutenant (with Ranger tab) who spent 15 months in Iraq as an infantyry platoon leader and earned a Bronze Star and an Army Medal for Valor for actions under fire. His opinion expresed to me last week was that if you let our guys finish the job, we will prevail for good in Iraq.

I cannot tell you how proud I am of my older son, my younger son (he is a U.S. Marines Second Lieutenant) and their fellow soldiers and Marines. Why is so difficult for people to understand that with the right lewadership (in Iraq, General Petraeus) and the right strategy (in Iraq, the surge) that our sons and daughters in the military can accomplish anything. They are simply magnificent.

Phil Byler on July 14, 2008 at 8:20 PM

apollyonbob on July 14, 2008 at 8:12 PM

More like one of those questions that proves the poll is inaccurate or poorly done.

Nonfactor on July 14, 2008 at 8:23 PM

I wouldn’t trust ABC NEWS,or their poll,
after all former Clinton staffer Stepphanoplis,
(foregive me on the spelling),is probably in
ca-hoots with the DNC,and he just might
be working behind the scene so to speak!

canopfor on July 14, 2008 at 8:27 PM

AllahPundit,good to have you back.:)

canopfor on July 14, 2008 at 8:28 PM

So, what, something like 10-20% of Obama’s support is coming from people who think he would NOT make a good commander-in-chief?

? No, I think that 48% correlates to the percentage that are supporting him. Please note: The question didn’t ask which of them would make a BETTER c-in-c, just whether you believe they’d be good. The percentage doesn’t have to total 100%.

What’s interesting about that result is that McCain only has ~45% of the electorate right now, even though he has that monster lead on the c-in-c question.

Allahpundit on July 14, 2008 at 8:34 PM

What’s interesting about that result is that McCain only has ~45% of the electorate right now, even though he has that monster lead on the c-in-c question.

A lot of people say that we aren’t focusing enough on domestic issues. So they might think he would be a good Commander-in-Chief, but they care more about health care, education, etc.

terryannonline on July 14, 2008 at 8:37 PM

Oh wow, man, ya know? We need more information, ya know? More speeches, more candidates, more expert testimony in front of congressional committees. Ya know? Like, I don’t know, I mean, it’s really complex. We can’t trust McCain, and that Obama dude changes his position all the time, so we should wait until the convention and see what happens there, ya know? Like maybe Hillary could give a speech or something, ya know? Like nobody wants their family members overseas and stuff, and it cost a lot of money that we could be spending on saving the environment and stuff, ya know?

Am I making any sense here, man? Like lite up another big one dude, and lets think about this ‘cuz it’s really hard to figure out, ya know, dude?

rockhauler on July 14, 2008 at 8:37 PM

Exit question,and Obama wants to re-deploy
to where may I ask,Diego Garcia?

So,I take it,Liberals are trying to bring
the American electorate back to the war is
lost!

Or are they trying to frame it that way!

canopfor on July 14, 2008 at 8:43 PM

BTW,has anyone noticed or taken a poll,as
to the Code Pinko’s anti-war protests,that
went into a twizzy,and at the same time,the
goons in Bahgdad were blowing up vechicles,
left,right and centre,back then!

And now,all is quiet,on both sides!

Strange eh!

canopfor on July 14, 2008 at 8:48 PM

“Since the Vietnam War, U.S. policymakers have worried that the American public will support military operations only if the human costs of the war, as measured in combat casualties, are minimal … Ultimately, however, beliefs about the likelihood of success matter most in determining the public’s willingness to tolerate U.S. military deaths in combat.”

See, “McCain Holding Strong on Iraq Support, Poll Finds”:

http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2008/07/mccain-holding-strong-on-iraq-support.html

Donald Douglas on July 14, 2008 at 9:11 PM

Allah, indeed it is great to have you back.

carbon_footprint on July 14, 2008 at 9:23 PM

The old gray mare ain’t what she use’ to be

Travis1 on July 14, 2008 at 9:29 PM

If you never click one of my links to a video, please, just view this one.

They are the future of Iraq.

WoosterOh on July 14, 2008 at 9:41 PM

MB4..

Maliki…did he?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7504571.stm

Limerick on July 14, 2008 at 7:54 PM

From the BBC link -

What he actually said was: “The direction is towards either a memorandum of understanding on their evacuation, or a memorandum of understanding on programming their withdrawal presence.”

I dunno.

Seems like he’s talking withdrawal. Withdrawal or “presence” which in the context would presumable be a lot lower “presence” of Americans there. He did use the word “evacuation”, which they didn’t change, and which actually sounds like a complete withdrawal and I don’t think that even Obama is talking about that. And then there is what his National Security adviser said too.

MB4 on July 14, 2008 at 9:50 PM

“Programming” presumably means programing down. If it was his staff that put in “withdrawal” presumable they didn’t get it all mixed up.

MB4 on July 14, 2008 at 9:52 PM

rockhauler on July 14, 2008 at 8:37 PM

What really worries me about your post is that I understood it! :)

OldEnglish on July 14, 2008 at 9:56 PM

Update: Forgot to mention, answering “yes” to whether the candidate would be a good commander-in-chief: McCain 72, Obama 48.

Now that’s interesting. I mean you could take this question to mean “does this person have it in them to be president?” Democrats may not like or want McCain, but they seem to be acknowledging that he could definitely do the job. Obama…not so much…even among his own supporters. And I’m curious if his number will improve or get worse now that he’s been going back on his positions so much.

ZP on July 14, 2008 at 9:58 PM

That was based on reports that Maliki demanded a timetable for withdrawal. That was inaccurate, as BBC has learned listening to the actual audio.

amerpundit on July 14, 2008 at 8:06 PM

Looks like it was reasonably accurate to me. Just one changed word. And there was still the word “evacuation” left and presumably “programming their presences” means down. And then there is what his own National Security adviser said. And I thought the BBC was not to be trusted, but that’s a “sidebar”.

MB4 on July 14, 2008 at 9:58 PM

MB4 on July 14, 2008 at 9:50 PM

Well, my take (FWIW), is Maliki is a nationalist and is playing that card for the Iraqi electorate. Then again he may be playing that card betting that Barry gets the WH. Dunno myself, but I don’t see how he can survive a faction war if the U.S. leaves too quickly.

Limerick on July 14, 2008 at 10:00 PM

My older son is a U.S. Army First Lieutenant (with Ranger tab) who spent 15 months in Iraq as an infantyry platoon leader and earned a Bronze Star and an Army Medal for Valor for actions under fire.

Phil Byler on July 14, 2008 at 8:20 PM

I think that was seared into my memory by the time you said it about a dozen times a few months ago.

MB4 on July 14, 2008 at 10:01 PM

Why is so difficult for people to understand that with the right lewadership (in Iraq, General Petraeus) and the right strategy (in Iraq, the surge) that our sons and daughters in the military can accomplish anything. They are simply magnificent.

Phil Byler on July 14, 2008 at 8:20 PM

Good, then let’s bring them home and put them to work guarding the southern border of the United States of America and going after those anti-American employers who draw millions of illegals, who kill thousand of Americans a year, here by offering them jobs.

MB4 on July 14, 2008 at 10:07 PM

BTW, the purpose of ‘The Surge’, which according to initial plans was suppose to last something like 8 months, was suppose to be not as an end in itself, but rather to give time to the Iraqis so that they could get their act together and we could withdraw, so it’s success is logically measured by how fast we now withdraw.

MB4 on July 14, 2008 at 10:12 PM

Well, my take (FWIW), is Maliki is a nationalist and is playing that card for the Iraqi electorate. Then again he may be playing that card betting that Barry gets the WH. Dunno myself, but I don’t see how he can survive a faction war if the U.S. leaves too quickly.

Limerick on July 14, 2008 at 10:00 PM

I think that he has a lot more confidence in his abilities than you do. You are probably closer to the truth though. Remember, most politicians have big heads.

MB4 on July 14, 2008 at 10:14 PM

If the majority of Democrats do not support even fighting in Afghanistan, how will they react to Obama’s plans to increase troop presence there?

He is way over his head.

As for what Maliki said, I think people are trying to complicate things too much. Iraqis are going to want an American presence for some time. They will need help with training and infrastructure just to mention a couple of things. That does not mean they want to keep 150,000 American troops there forever anymore than we do.

I know this, the press can not even repeat what the man says with any accuracy so I am not sure their analysis is worth noting.

Terrye on July 14, 2008 at 10:17 PM

Phil:

MB4 may have gotten tired of hearing you talk with pride about your son, but it is the first time I have heard mention of him.

Terrye on July 14, 2008 at 10:19 PM

The fact that there has been so much trouble getting that “Status of Forces” agreement, which may never get here, shows that Bush and Maliki are at odds on some major matters. I think that we can be sure of that much.

MB4 on July 14, 2008 at 10:21 PM

Some people may miss Saddam trying to kill presidents and shooting at our planes and gassing villagers and raping women and cutting our men’s tongues and making a mockery of a signed cease fire agreement and using a humanitarian program as his personal slush fund and threatening the region with constant war and giving aid and comfort to terrorists and filling mass graves with women and children and throwing people off buildings and disappearing people and terrorizing his own people for decades and hiding weapons programs and disappearing or selling or just plain losing wmd and in general being a psycho mass murdering dictatorial antiAmerican son of a bitch. But I for one am glad he is gone.

It is too bad there are people on the extreme right and extreme left who wish the Butcher of Baghdad was still in business.

Terrye on July 14, 2008 at 10:27 PM

MB4:

You do not know that.

Terrye on July 14, 2008 at 10:28 PM

They may just be waiting to see how things develop. Our election might be complicating things. All sorts of issues could be involved.

According the naysayers and the doomsayers and the people who want to see things go as badly as possible, the situation in Iraq was not supposed to even be as good as it is right now.

Terrye on July 14, 2008 at 10:30 PM

They may just be waiting to see how things develop. Our election might be complicating things. All sorts of issues could be involved.

Sure, from what I’ve read electoral/domestic politics for both countries are complicating things.

In any case, we’ll always have Kuwait and the 5th Fleet.

Not as romantic as “having Paris”, but it’ll do.

SteveMG on July 14, 2008 at 10:34 PM

just view this one.

WoosterOh on july 14,2008 at 9:41PM.

WoosterOh: That video should be seen by more people,it
moved me to shed a few tears,after all its
about the children,the future of Iraq!

This is a positive story,I was a cub scout
before I went into the Navy League,good fun
times!

And it reaffirms my attitude towards Americans
and America,I thank-you for the video,——-:).

canopfor on July 14, 2008 at 10:36 PM

So why does the answer to question 11 say that only 36% think the war in Iraq was worth it vs. 63% that said it wasnt? Arent you confusing the two wars?

jim m on July 14, 2008 at 10:57 PM

An Honest Speech by Barack Obama

I, Barack Obama, want you to vote for me. I opposed the surge in Iraq. I would have pulled out completely by now. Fortunately, America didn’t listen to me. Now we have all but won in Iraq. Nevertheless, I still want to take our troops out, because I want you, the American people, to think that we are still losing in Iraq, even though that’s false.

I am for a full withdrawal from our victory in Iraq, and a surge in Afghanistan. We should let Iraq turn into a fiery hell, and make rivers of honey flow in Afghanistan. I would probably get more votes if people thought this way.

No more drilling for oil. Stop using up fuel.

9/11 was because we didn’t give enough to the poor people of the world, like Osama Bin Laden’s family.

I will be the greatest leader the world has ever known, because I’m not just a liberal, I’m a black liberal who is half Muslim. The very fact of who I am would be a game-changer on the world stage. I can do things that a white President could not.

As for Iran, let’s talk to that fuzzy bearded gentleman. Surely he can be reasoned with. He probably grew up poor due to US imperialism. If he just sits down and talks to me, he will see that I am half-black, half-Muslim, and half-honest. After that, we will have a picnic and our countries will be friends. That will solve this whole stupid problem created by all those stupid presidents who have come before Me.

On the subject of Pakistan, we should invade that country. Sure, they’re currently our friend, and they have nuclear weapons. What’s the problem? We’ll just invade them and take out terrorist camps. Nothing bad could happen from that!

By the way, teach your kids Spanish. They will have to if they want to vote when they grow up.

I have recently heard some people nickname me “Backtrack Obama.” Your names have been recorded. Once I get into the White House, we will deal with this situation.

Thank you! Si si peude!

indythinker on July 14, 2008 at 11:00 PM

MB4 may have gotten tired of hearing you talk with pride about your son, but it is the first time I have heard mention of him.

Terrye on July 14, 2008 at 10:19 PM

On the off chance that his son(s) will look at HA, I don’t want him to embarrass him(them).

MB4 on July 14, 2008 at 11:03 PM

MB4:

You do not know that.

Terrye on July 14, 2008 at 10:28 PM

Know what? That there is no “Status of Forces” agreement yet? I’m pretty darned sure that there isn’t.

MB4 on July 14, 2008 at 11:05 PM

But I for one am glad he is gone.

It is too bad there are people on the extreme right and extreme left who wish the Butcher of Baghdad was still in business.

Terrye on July 14, 2008 at 10:27 PM

Who wishes he were still in “business”? Name, names. I’m glad he and his spawn are out of “business”. I never had any problem at all with doing away with them. My “issue” has always been that I do not think that it is in America’s interest to marry Iraq/Islamic Nation Build.

MB4 on July 14, 2008 at 11:09 PM

According the naysayers and the doomsayers and the people who want to see things go as badly as possible, the situation in Iraq was not supposed to even be as good as it is right now.

Terrye on July 14, 2008 at 10:30 PM

From what Bush said years ago we weren’t even suppose to be there anymore well before now. At least in anything like this kind of numbers. Google some of his and his VP’s words from years ago now.

Do not “assume” that those who want us out of Iraq “want things to go badly”. Frankly it is not very American to do that.

MB4 on July 14, 2008 at 11:14 PM

McCain may make a better C in C, but the war isn’t the only issue facing Americans. In World War I, Ludendorf was a brilliant commander, and made some impressive gains in 1917-1918 as commander of the German Forces. However the population was starving, the citizens were striking, and protesting, because all the wonderful news, false much of it, on the progress of the war, wasn’t helping them feed their children.

The French faced similar unrest and strikes with their citizens. These strikes and civil unrest in Russia led to the Abdication of the Czar. They led to the rise in power of the Communists. This despite the fact that the Russians had nearly beaten the Austrian/Hungarian forces at the time, and had made impressive gains in the Military situation.

The people need to be taken care of too. I don’t mean taken care of from cradle to grave, I mean they need to know that their future is secure at home, as it is being secured overseas. Yet, in this thread, McCain is a fool, which is why he’s not polling higher than he is. With families struggling to stretch a dollar to afford gasoline, food, housing costs, and the rest of that. McCain tells them he won’t drill in ANWR, thus showing the people that he doesn’t care any more than Obama about what they are feeling or going through. People just want a chance to make a better life for themselves, they don’t want Government taking care of them from cradle to grave. Just a fighting chance.

Yet, Washington Elitists like McCain think that people aren’t paying enough taxes, which is why he opposed the Bush Tax Cuts. Yet, now he’s running for office, and all in favor of stimulus checks. Sure, to buy my vote, he’ll pretend to care about how much I’m paying in taxes. Right.

So you wonder why the Democrats are winning in the polls? Here’s why. The Republicans are as lame as they have ever been. They can’t agree on a message, and they can’t rally around McCain the Maverick. He’s got shorter coat tails than Clinton in 96. Yet, the Republicans should be winning hands down. Even with a lame ass candidate like McCain leading the charge.

Instead we get tons of sound bites telling us that Bush and the Republicans are keeping oil company profits high at our expense. Is it true? No. But it is effective. We tried to pick a leader this time, and we got McCain, because it was his turn.

So now you can beat me up about how awful I am to speak ill of St. John McCain. You’ll tell me how important it is to win the war on Terror. I agree by the way, but while it is an important thing, it’s not the only important thing. McCain is the wrong choice, not just at this time, but at any time. So we’ll get President Obama, and the war in Iraq will wind down painfully while he waffles on pull out versus win. In the end, we’ll be lucky if Iran doesn’t take over the entire region.

Watching the Republicans campaign this year is like watching the Russian version of Checkers known as Poddovki. The objective in that game is to lose all of your pieces to your opponent. The Republicans appear to be trying to lose as many seats and elected positions as they can.

Snake307 on July 14, 2008 at 11:15 PM

Snake, MB4,

Can you two get any more pessimistic, whiney, narcissistic and egotistical than you already are. Why don’t you two start your own country because you guys are the only people who can run things the way that would make you happy.
I mean each of you would have to start their own country because I have no doubt that you would both be nitpicking each other to death eventually!

Vince on July 14, 2008 at 11:39 PM

Gulp!

Funny how elections begin to focus the minds of the electorate.

BTW, did I even tweak you for your prediction that the GOP was going to abandon Bush on Iraq by March?

;-)

Welcome back!

Karl on July 14, 2008 at 11:43 PM

McCain may..

Snake307 on July 14,2008 at 11:15PM.

Snake307: The last thread I jumped on you,and I
sincerely apologize for calling you,
a lefty,I’m sorry for that Snake307.

I apologized in the last thread,:)

canopfor on July 14, 2008 at 11:52 PM

Snake, MB4,

Can you two get any more pessimistic, whiney, narcissistic and egotistical than you already are. Why don’t you two start your own country because you guys are the only people who can run things the way that would make you happy.
I mean each of you would have to start their own country because I have no doubt that you would both be nitpicking each other to death eventually!

Vince on July 14, 2008 at 11:39 PM

Would you like to know what would make me happy? Reagan. A candidate who pushes for less Government, instead of more. A candidate who explains how the individual is in command of their own lives, instead of coming up with more programs and laws to limit the individuals liberty.

Freedom and Liberty is what make me happy. I want the freedom to choose for myself what I want to do. I want the liberty to live my life with absolute minimal interference from anyone. I want to live my life the way that that God intended us to live it. As long as you harm none, do what you will. Instead from McCain the Republican nominee that many on here, perhaps even yourself, have compared to Reagan. Pfui.

McCain is about as closely associated to Reagan as Mondale. IN fact, I think that Mondale was a bit more Conservative than McCain. When I can name Democrats who no one would argue, are more Conservative than McCain, we have a weak candidate. Zell Miller is that Democrat. If Miller was running for the Democrats, the Republicans would be toast.

Why aren’t the Republicans out there on the talking point shows telling America that the higher gas prices are a result of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and the policies they espouse? Because McCain throws anyone who does say that under the bus personally. Sure I can name Conservatives who do say it, Limbaugh for one. They’re not elected leaders, they’re pundits, and they’re not the ones who are supposed to lead are they?

Why aren’t the Republicans out there demanding an elimination of the Ethanol requirement in Gasoline to make food more affordable? Oh well that would upset the voters in Iowa, and we can’t do that, let a Billion people starve, it’s far more important to make a good impression in Iowa.

Yeah, this current track the Republicans are on is so awesome. Let’s cheer the starving people in the world. Yeah team. Let’s cheer the dolt we nominated for President. I just love his cap and trade plan. It makes me proud to know our candidate is going to tax us all into the poor house for non existent man made global warming. I argue global warming supporters into surrender constantly, and our elected leaders surrender at the first chance. They don’t have the guts to lead, and we shouldn’t elect them just because they’ve got an R.

I just love McCain’s platform for the economy. Why, I can’t tell you how good it makes me feel to know that McCain is going to pander to anyone who can get him elected. His stance on Immigration makes me so damn proud that our sons and daughters are over in Iraq risking life and limb, so illegal aliens can steal their identities, screw up their taxes for years to come, and screw up their credit ratings, all so McCain can get his signature (this time) legislation through.

The first amendment says Congress shall pass no laws. It doesn’t say that the Supreme Court shall find any laws which violate invalid, it says Congress shall pass no laws. Yet McCain passed a law, pushed for it constantly, to declare that we can’t speak ill of a candidate for sixty days before an election.

Republicans stand to lose big, because they aren’t willing to stand for anything, and the public figures why bother standing in line for an hour to vote for a punk who’s going to roll over at the first sign of difficulty. I’m so damn proud that our party is now embracing the oppositions platform. I’m so damn proud of the Republicans for surrendering on so many topics that I won’t bother to list them here. I can’t tell you how amazingly proud that I am to be able to come here and support a great candidate like John McCain, and I completely support his immigration amnesty program. I mean, just because someone has been living here committing multiple felonies like identity fraud for years and screwing up real citizens lives is no reason not to support it.

To hell with securing the border, like we expect McCain to do that, he didn’t do it this last time. I’m so damn proud that I can sit here and watch McCain lie to us and not vomit that I can’t begin to describe my joy and euphoria.

Like you Vince, I can’t wait until the prices of everything doubles so we can pay the Government additional taxes through the corporations for creating Greenhouse gas.

You’re right Vince, there is so much to be thankful for in our candidate. I appreciate you’re straightening me out. Sure Obama would be worse, but this way, Republicans get the blame for the rising prices, and we get a true socialist instead of a leftist liberal for President. Thank God we get McCain though.

Is that better?

Snake307 on July 15, 2008 at 12:33 AM

McCain may..

Snake307 on July 14,2008 at 11:15PM.

Snake307: The last thread I jumped on you,and I
sincerely apologize for calling you,
a lefty,I’m sorry for that Snake307.

I apologized in the last thread,:)

canopfor on July 14, 2008 at 11:52 PM

I know Cano, and it’s cool. I think it’s funny that we always label anyone who denounces the party line as a leftist though.

As I said, and I believe that you understand now, I’m a hard core conservative. I believe that social programs should be a safety net, to catch our citizens who’ve fallen off the ladder, before they hit rock bottom. I don’t believe it should be a hammock, and I question why we’ve set it up that way. I asked a fried who’s a loud supporter of Democratic positions that not too long ago.

I told him that there is an old saying that if we give a man a fish, we’ve fed him for a day. If we teach him to fish, we’ve fed him for a lifetime. Why is it then that we only allow programs that issue him a fish a day? Why do we penalize those who try and climb back up the ladder to success?

My Friend, LB, is now more conservative in his thoughts, and his view. It took days of conversations to cover the classic liberal ideals, and reality. Yet, he’s now telling his friends the ideals of conservative principals, and they are agreeing. Most people agree, they want to earn the good life, and we Conservatives aren’t doing this right at all. We’re letting the Party Elite Republicans decide what Conservative is. We’re letting them redefine our history to suit their weakness, and we’re doing it all in the name of short term political gains. We’ve become what we hate, and we’ve embraced the policies of our moral enemies, the Liberals and Socialists.

Compromise means we try to shoot for the stars, and end up barely clearing the trees. That’s reality in politics. Yet, our current crop of Republicans aim for the tops of the trees, and settle for a little hop as they embrace the ideals of the left.

When this is pointed out, by people, and not just myself, we’re labeled as troublemakers. Fine, label me all you want. I really don’t care. However, when you lose more seats in Congress, don’t blame me, because people would rather have the original, than the pale imitation. If they have a choice between Democrat, and Democrat Lite, they’ll choose the original, and I think we’re seeing that these days.

Perhaps the Republicans will wake up and throw these Czarist Princes who think they deserve something for nothing out of the party. Perhaps they’ll once again embrace the ideals which made the Republican Party great, but probably not. The country club Republicans are back in power, and they’re not going to go quietly.

Newt was demonized, and was pretty much a solid Conservative. He led a revolution, huge gains in congress, by espousing Conservative Principals. Welfare Reform happened, because of Conservative Principals. We won landslides on conservative ideals. We forgot that, got complacent, and started to act like the Liberals, special treatment, special perks, special gifts to our friends.

Snake307 on July 15, 2008 at 12:49 AM

I know cano..

Snake307 on July,15,2008 at 12:49AM.

Snake307: Thanks for the kind words,and I remember Newt,
when he had “Contract with America”,and how
the Liberal’s railroaded Newt out of politics!

Some crap about taxes he didn’t pay on a book
deal,not quite sure,however at the same time,
Hillary got a free pass!

Every time there’s an affective Republican,
the Libs and MSM figure a way to get rid of
him!

Nice to hear from you again,Snake307,—–:).

canopfor on July 15, 2008 at 2:17 AM

Snake, MB4,

Can you two get any more pessimistic, whiney, narcissistic and egotistical than you already are.

Vince on July 14, 2008 at 11:39 PM

Well now, if Juan “Sucks Socks” McBernie continues to get ever more pro LaRaza, pro McCain/Kennedy, pro McCain/Feingold, pro Al Gore Apocolyptic Global Warming and more “#uck you! I know more than anyone else in this room”, then probably yes.

MB4 on July 15, 2008 at 3:09 AM

MB4:

You do not know that.

Terrye on July 14, 2008 at 10:28 PM
Know what? That there is no “Status of Forces” agreement yet? I’m pretty darned sure that there isn’t.

MB4 on July 14, 2008 at 11:05 PM

You do not know that there is no “Statues of Forces” agreement because (your assertion) Bush and Malaki are at odds on some major issues. (your words)

If your not going to bother defending your assertions,why bother?

HGFinley on July 15, 2008 at 3:30 AM

An Honest Speech by Barack Obama

I, Barack Obama, want you to vote for me. I opposed the surge in Iraq. I would have pulled out completely by now. Fortunately, America didn’t listen to me. Now we have all but won in Iraq. Nevertheless, I still want to take our troops out, because I want you, the American people, to think that we are still losing in Iraq, even though that’s false.

I am for a full withdrawal from our victory in Iraq, and a surge in Afghanistan. We should let Iraq turn into a fiery hell, and make rivers of honey flow in Afghanistan. I would probably get more votes if people thought this way.

No more drilling for oil. Stop using up fuel.

9/11 was because we didn’t give enough to the poor people of the world, like Osama Bin Laden’s family.

I will be the greatest leader the world has ever known, because I’m not just a liberal, I’m a black liberal who is half Muslim. The very fact of who I am would be a game-changer on the world stage. I can do things that a white President could not.

As for Iran, let’s talk to that fuzzy bearded gentleman. Surely he can be reasoned with. He probably grew up poor due to US imperialism. If he just sits down and talks to me, he will see that I am half-black, half-Muslim, and half-honest. After that, we will have a picnic and our countries will be friends. That will solve this whole stupid problem created by all those stupid presidents who have come before Me.

On the subject of Pakistan, we should invade that country. Sure, they’re currently our friend, and they have nuclear weapons. What’s the problem? We’ll just invade them and take out terrorist camps. Nothing bad could happen from that!

By the way, teach your kids Spanish. They will have to if they want to vote when they grow up.

I have recently heard some people nickname me “Backtrack Obama.” Your names have been recorded. Once I get into the White House, we will deal with this situation.

Thank you! Si si peude!

indythinker on July 14, 2008 at 11:00 PM

I see that you too got an advance copy of O’s innaguration speech.

HGFinley on July 15, 2008 at 3:37 AM