WaPo: Team McCain taking off the gloves

posted at 12:15 pm on October 4, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

Republicans frustrated by a perceived lack of fight from the John McCain campaign will find cheer in a Washington Post report this morning.  Sources within the campaign say that they will become much more aggressive in exposing Barack Obama’s ties to radicals and his lack of experience and judgment in the final four weeks of the campaign.  This strategy entails significant risk, but they need to regain the edge they had before the conventions:

Sen. John McCain and his Republican allies are readying a newly aggressive assault on Sen. Barack Obama’s character, believing that to win in November they must shift the conversation back to questions about the Democrat’s judgment, honesty and personal associations, several top Republicans said.

With just a month to go until Election Day, McCain’s team has decided that its emphasis on the senator’s biography as a war hero, experienced lawmaker and straight-talking maverick is insufficient to close a growing gap with Obama. The Arizonan’s campaign is also eager to move the conversation away from the economy, an issue that strongly favors Obama and has helped him to a lead in many recent polls.

“We’re going to get a little tougher,” a senior Republican operative said, indicating that a fresh batch of television ads is coming. “We’ve got to question this guy’s associations. Very soon. There’s no question that we have to change the subject here,” said the operative, who was not authorized to discuss strategy and spoke on the condition of anonymity.

As Michael Shear notes, there is some risk in this, although Shear gets another point wrong.  The ad “Original Mavericks” is not the only positive ad this campaign has on the air; “Week” is a positive ad, and Team McCain just rolled it out, and “Foundation” is a hybrid, and I believe that’s still on the air as well.  Shear also points to “Tax Cutter” as an example of Team McCain’s new attack, but McCain has been hammering Obama on his tax record for weeks, if not months, and it has nothing to do with Obama’s associates.

The risk comes with an imbalanced attack — one that doesn’t talk about McCain nearly as much as it talks about Obama.  Nothing in the article indicates that Team McCain plans to stop talking about their own candidates, though.  They may run positive ads, such as “Week”, right along with ads focusing on Obama’s political work with William Ayers, and Obama’s lack of any efforts at reforming Chicago politics.  They almost certainly will continue to produce and air positive advertising, although it won’t gain anywhere near the attention from the media that sharp new attacks on Obama will.  And that’s really the point.

Obama has run on his experience as a community organizer.  That makes the Ayers connection through the Chicago Annenberg Challenge relevant.  Obama has run as a reformer.  That makes his support for Richard Daley, the Strogers, Larry Walsh, and the rest of the corrupt Chicago Machine germane. McCain doesn’t need to focus on Jeremiah Wright, but Hillary Clinton brought it up and Obama made it into a major speech earlier this year, so that’s also on the table.  McCain should have been talking about all of this since June, but perhaps it makes more sense to wait until everyone is paying attention to raise these issues.

With the bailout bill behind him, though, McCain has to start talking about the real reasons behind the financial collapse — the perversion of the lending markets through Democratic intervention, and the Democrats who protected Fannie Mae from the OFHEO regulators while they blithely bought billions in bad paper and turned them into bad securities that poisoned the entire investment sector.    He may have held his tongue while building bipartisan support for Congressional action, but the time has come to name names, and to point to Obama’s massive fundraising from Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac interests and link it to his complete inaction on the subprime lending crisis.

The gloves have to come off now.  Republicans want to see John McCain stand up and fight.  They’ll stand up and fight with him, but they’re not going to do that until McCain leads them.


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

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

how do term limits exacerbate the problem? If we had limits you wouldn’t have people in the Congress for 35+ years doing absolutely nothing but sucking money out of my pocket! or at least that’s how I see it.. enlighten me..

kareyk on October 4, 2008 at 4:25 PM

Truce- Tommy.

Let’s do whatever we can to keep Obama the hell out of the White House.

And if the election doesn’t go that way…..then after 2 or 3….or…10 months of heavy drinking-

let’s look forward to a truly Conservative ticket in 2012.

Palin/Gindal?

FiveWays on October 4, 2008 at 4:26 PM

The thing I’m concerned about- and noone talks about is … What can McC and Palin do with a Democrat/far left congress and very few Republicans with any balls? Nothing will be done or can be “reformed” if Congress does not change. Palin can name names all she wants but with the MSM on the lib side-noone will listen-except us. Congress has to change- and it looks like Frankenstein is up by 9 in MN- God help us all.

kareyk on October 4, 2008 at 4:04 PM

If they do nothing but stand athwart the dems and yell ‘Stop!’ they will have served us well.

Actually, getting pretty much nothing done during the next 4 years, while McC’s spending freezes are allowed to work and sanity is allowed to return might be the right prescription while we ramp up our educational efforts to turn America back toward a more Conservative and responsible way of life.

Hey, stranger things have happened.

techno_barbarian on October 4, 2008 at 4:27 PM

Gindal———–Jindal

kareyk on October 4, 2008 at 4:28 PM

spending freezes – he’ll have to veto every bill. hard to do without line item veto.. but I agree. Good things come to those who wait, I just hope the country can survive it.

kareyk on October 4, 2008 at 4:29 PM

FiveWays on October 4, 2008 at 4:26 PM

Well, Don Tommygunno? Come, paisano…make the peace. Together, let us defeat Don Obama (spits on floor).

ManlyRash on October 4, 2008 at 4:31 PM

See? That’s where you’re blinding yourself

.

This election is nothing BUT middle ground. In fact, one of the main reasons I think McC might actually be the right man for the times we’re about to face is directly because of his desire to try to bring such a clearly divided electorate back together.

We can’t go from one extreme to another that quickly. It’s just not possible, (marxist-leninist overthrow that would instantly plunge us into another civil war excepted).

It’s going to take a long time to turn this battleship around. McC just might be the guy to pull us away from the headlong and accelerating dangerously leftward spiral to outright socialism.

We all understand full well what the consequences are. Our main concern is whether or not McC will actually DO WHAT IT TAKES TO WIN THIS THING.

I damn sure hope he does, but I’m still waiting and praying those gloves will come off and that famed McMaverickiness will jump out and slay the opposition. He has more than enough ammo for the task. All he’s got to do is fully engage.

C’mon Maverick. Engage, damnit!

techno_barbarian on October 4, 2008 at 4:03 PM

I actually largely agree. My point in the contrasts was more about direction than situation. Too often, conservatives/Rightwingers get self-focused and only think about their own situation here and now, and not the country’s situation in the future. When a candidate does not support moving immediately to how they want the country, they too often reject. “My way or the highway,” when if they worked with the better of the two, they would at the very least hold some semblance of the line.

I would add, though, that Hussein’s agenda and ideology would move the country so far Left it would be the kind of jerk you are opposing.

I hope this helps explain my position.

Truce- Tommy.

Let’s do whatever we can to keep Obama the hell out of the White House.

And if the election doesn’t go that way…..then after 2 or 3….or…10 months of heavy drinking-

let’s look forward to a truly Conservative ticket in 2012.

Palin/Gindal?

FiveWays on October 4, 2008 at 4:26 PM

Truce, absolutely!

Working to oppose Hussein, absolutely, and no matter how bad McCain-Palin may screw up!

On 2012, it will depend on what’s left of the country if we lose here.

Palin/Jindal? Maybe. (I won’t start another argument by offering an alternative here! lolol)

This will be my last post for awhile. Serious connection problems. It keeps giving me a 405 error or soemthing.

Tommygun on October 4, 2008 at 4:32 PM

MB4 on October 4, 2008 at 4:03 PM

True, but it’s a stretch to condemn the entire campaign for this.

They’ve done well at thinking on their feet, and acting in real time. Granted, there have been mistakes.

The question is, are they ready to do battle now that they appear to have the hill against their backs?

Saltysam on October 4, 2008 at 4:35 PM

kareyk on October 4, 2008 at 4:25 PM

Term limits remove accountability by vote. If you have term limits, you have no incentive to listen to voters. Party machines would actually increase, not decrease in power. When in office, it increases incentive to take special interest money to pass sh1tty bills, etc to secure financial security at the end of terms. Also decreases quality of politician as it is dead-end street. Punishes states with great representatives and diminishes their rights fro the sake of cleaning up states that have bad representatives.

Spirit of 1776 on October 4, 2008 at 4:36 PM

Very good point! thanks for the “schoolin’”. I hadn’t thought about that. Goin’ to see American Carol- y’all have a good night!

kareyk on October 4, 2008 at 4:38 PM

So, are we sure that making it a bigger issue right now will help McCain and the other Republicans running?

Just askin. I honestly do not know.

Terrye on October 4, 2008 at 4:21 PM

I don’t honestly know either, but I think it’s our best shot at making our point against the dems, just because so many people are outraged. They’ve been told by the leader of the House and every dem that this is all the GOP’s fault. Evidence is coming out hourly about who the guilty parties really are.

This could very much work in our favor as the People pause and go, “Wait a minute… but Nancy said it was all the GOP’s fault. But that’s clearly not the truth. What else have they been lying about?”

techno_barbarian:

And when people ask why the Republicans did not stop this or care about when it might have made a difference?

I don’t suppose there is a lot to lose. But do not be surprised if some of those guilty party people have an R behind their name.

Terrye on October 4, 2008 at 4:24 PM

That might actually make it easier for people to swallow the entire bitter pill of truth. If there are R’s that are demonstrably guilty, the they should most definitely shoulder their measure of blame and be very publicly punished along with the guilty dems.

techno_barbarian on October 4, 2008 at 4:43 PM

This would also help McCain (it’s from my blog):
Dear Senator McCain and Governor Palin,
Please drop the goofy economic populism. You can’t out-populist Obama Bin Biden, and there’s a better way to convince voters that your economic plan is better. Simply explain how conservative economic principles work every time they are tried. Biden trashed Bush economics all last night during the debate, and all Palin could say in response was, “Let’s look forward instead”. Bush’s tax cuts revived the economy from the recession he inherited from Clinton, and tax cuts revived us again after 9/11. The biggest problem with Bush’s economics has been not tax policy, but spending like a Democrat. And why is the economy suffering now? Because of government limiting where “evil Exxon/Mobile” can drill, and because of government taking over the mortgage industry, where criminals like Jim Johnson and Frank Raines (now Obama advisors) cooked the books at F and F.

jgapinoy on October 4, 2008 at 4:44 PM

So, we can all call a truce and agree to focus our fire on Obama/Biden?

Quit with all the beetching about McCain until after Nov. 5?

I really think that’s what it will take. A united front for 1 month. We need to line up behind our ticket, and behind our strong downticket republicans and fight as one.

Otherwise it’s an Obama win, and possibly bigger dem majorities in both houses of congress.

funky chicken on October 4, 2008 at 4:45 PM

Spirit:

I see your point on term limits, and I would have agreed not so long ago. But I have begun to wonder if term limits might be more conducive to attracting the kind of citizen representative the founders hoped to see running the country.

Terrye on October 4, 2008 at 4:45 PM

funky chicken:

Yep.

Terrye on October 4, 2008 at 4:46 PM

The New York Times just gave McCain the opening he needed to launch on the Democrat Housing Scam:

Pressured to Take on Risk, Fannie Hit a Tipping Point

FiveWays on October 4, 2008 at 4:46 PM

It’s time for anybody who doesn’t want to see Obama in the White House to stop belittling and snarking at our candidate.

Behaving otherwise is de facto helping to elect Obama.

funky chicken on October 4, 2008 at 4:48 PM

techno_barbarian:

I will say one thing, Pelosi’s little rant did not help her any. Even the Washington Post went after her. The truth is when stuff like this happens, the American people would like to think their well being is number one with the leaders of the country, not score settling.

So, it will be touchy to go after this. A fine line between telling the truth and using the crisis. Of course the Democrats cross that line everyday and it does not seem to hurt them.

But who knows what will happen? Things just seem to change on a dime any more.

Terrye on October 4, 2008 at 4:50 PM

Five Ways:

Imagine how different things would have been if Bush had been able to shut down that operation in 2003.

Terrye on October 4, 2008 at 4:51 PM

So, we can all call a truce and agree to focus our fire on Obama/Biden?

Quit with all the beetching about McCain until after Nov. 5?

I really think that’s what it will take. A united front for 1 month. We need to line up behind our ticket, and behind our strong downticket republicans and fight as one.

Otherwise it’s an Obama win, and possibly bigger dem majorities in both houses of congress.

funky chicken on October 4, 2008 at 4:45 PM

Yes!!!

Tommygun on October 4, 2008 at 4:52 PM

JIM KUHNHENN, Associated Press Writer

Who is this scumbag?

The press is the supply line for the enemy. They must be taken out.

All ads must triangulate an attack upon the media with the case against Obama.

Saltysam on October 4, 2008 at 4:56 PM

Five Ways:

Imagine how different things would have been if Bush had been able to shut down that operation in 2003.

Terrye on October 4, 2008 at 4:51 PM

I lost faith in Bush long ago. He was so busy spending like a drunken Democrat and letting the Dems set him up for the Bush lied meme over the Iraq War that I’m amazed he accomplished anything. He absolutely destroyed the Republican Party.

FiveWays on October 4, 2008 at 4:56 PM

Things just seem to change on a dime any more.

Terrye on October 4, 2008 at 4:50 PM

I’m actually counting on that happening, Terrye.

Enjoyed blogging with you today. Hang tough. Like you, I’m not giving up on America no matter what happens.

techno_barbarian on October 4, 2008 at 4:58 PM

Re the story on Mr. Mudd, he is obviously incompetent to deal with a high pressure enterprise, regardless of the sob story aspect about “one of us” the son of a journalist.

Question: if a GSE becomes irrelevant because the private sector is working well on its own, why doesn’t the GSE just disband? Is the government now competing with private enterprise instead of encouraging it?! I guess Congress just wanted in on those $90 million bonus plans!

PattyJ on October 4, 2008 at 4:58 PM

PattyJ on October 4, 2008 at 4:58 PM

Like I said- this story is enough of an opening for McCain to launch against the Dems for their anti-regulatory stance on Freddie and Fannie- AND to hag the LIAR moniker around Barry’s friggin neck!

FiveWays on October 4, 2008 at 5:01 PM

“Grand stand his ass off…like he did on the torture thing.”

Absolutely, cut to the chase with EARLY CONTRACEPTION.
Before the debate, NOW, have the record organized online.
During the debate, refer any Obama denials to the record online.
Publicly bind Obama to his record of slime.

After the debate, ads should renounce the tactics of Obama’s supporters:
Hacking Palin’s private email;
Evil rumor mongering about the Palin family;
Missouri executive & judicial public servants officially deny free speech and threaten punitive punishment;
Vandalism to private property;
Repudiating civility towards conservatives;
Denying and corrupting records and gagging efforts to stop corruption.

SHAME THE LEFTISTS THOUGH THEY HAVE NONE, PARADE THEIR CORRUPTION; LOOP THE ADS EXPOSING IT NONSTOP.

Don’t care what “they” say. Keep saying what “we” have to say on target.

That the DNC wants to pretend right now that they have already won proves their insecurity in this volatile, culminating month of the POTUS campaign.

maverick muse on October 4, 2008 at 5:10 PM

Five Ways:

Is there anyone you don’t dislike?

You know what? I started voting Republican because of Bush. Back in 2002 he had coat tails and in 2004 he won a second term.

The truth is if it were not for the willingness of some Republicans to knock a half dozen Democrats out of the way to be first in line to stab another Republican in the back we might not be worried about this election.

Let’s remember that Bush had to deal with 9/11, a total restructuring of the intelligence community, two fronts in a war and a not so loyal oppsition.

Not to mention natural disasters and an economic downturn following 9/11.

I do remember Bush vetoing the farm bill not so long ago, only to have Republicans crossing the aisle to vote with Democrats to over ride that veto. Congress spends the money, keep that in mind.

BTW, that drug program has saved money. It has kept people on their meds and that means less money spent, not more. I work in health care and I can see that every day. If they don’t take their meds and they get sick, the tax payers pick up the tab for medicare people.

But overall Bush has had to deal with a lot. BTW, I think that people on the right accusing Bush of trying to sell the ports to terrorists is just typical of the kind of interparty crap that always seems to hurt Republicans.

As for letting the Dems set him up for the Bush lied meme. I don’t even know what that means.

Terrye on October 4, 2008 at 5:20 PM

JIM KUHNHENN, Associated Press Writer

Who is this scumbag?

The press is the supply line for the enemy. They must be taken out.

All ads must triangulate an attack upon the media with the case against Obama.

Saltysam on October 4, 2008 at 4:56 PM

Perhaps the largest reason for republicans and conservatives to quit sniping at McCain–why the hell help carry the MSM’s water for them?

I really would like to see conservatives take a pledge to stop slamming McCain with backdoor insults. It seems every post here turns into a forum for people to say “well, I love XYZ that the McCain campaign just did, BUT … ”

I thought it was a conservative commentator who came up with the “but monkey” description of statements like that. Too bad conservatives can’t control that behavior in themselves a little better.

The MSM is going to do everything it possibly can to hand the White House to Obama. If you want to defeat them, it’s time to back our ticket. It’s only 1 month.

funky chicken on October 4, 2008 at 5:21 PM

Terrye on October 4, 2008 at 4:45 PM

The answer to your musing is no.

Spirit of 1776 on October 4, 2008 at 5:22 PM

Spirit:

Maybe not. But I have to say that sometimes I would just like to throw the bums out.

Terrye on October 4, 2008 at 5:35 PM

Terrye, there were many things Bush messed up. He should have started vetoing porkfests back when Trent Lott and Ted Stevens were running the Senate. He should have started seriously beefing up the military on 9/12/01. He should have started pushing nuclear power plants and US offshore drilling as a national security issue on 9/12/01.

“Brownie,” Alberto Gonzales, Harriet Miers, etc.

Now, George W Bush is a decent man who loves this country. I think he wasn’t ready for the job in 2000, but he did grow in office, and since the loss of congress in 2006 he’s been pretty strong.

The Paulson panic and collaboration with Pelosi and Reid on the bailout wasn’t good though, which is making me reassess my belief that he’d turned things around since Nov. 2006.

HOWEVER….and this is important….like I said, George W Bush does love this country. Barack Obama is less prepared than GWB was by far. I also don’t see any evidence whatsoever that BHO loves this country. He is a huge danger to the USA.

It’s the danger of a BHO presidency that has me so motivated to try to get people to support McCain/Palin wholeheartedly for the next month. I wasn’t crazy about Bush in 2004, but I supported him wholeheartedly against John Kerry. Obama’s much worse than Kerry. We must defeat Obama.

funky chicken on October 4, 2008 at 5:39 PM

I really think that’s what it will take. A united front for 1 month. We need to line up behind our ticket, and behind our strong downticket republicans and fight as one.

Otherwise it’s an Obama win, and possibly bigger dem majorities in both houses of congress.

funky chicken on October 4, 2008 at 4:45 PM

That’s probably good advice but you forget one important point. This isn’t a simple policy disagreement. Many McCain critics don’t trust him because he (McCain) has betrayed them countless times in the past- immigration reform, denying qualified conservative jurists a seat, and CFR just three examples. It’s one thing to be a “maverick” but John McCain is a traitor to principles held dear by social conservatives and evangelicals.

What does McCain do for this group if we STFU and remain unquestioning and uncritical this last month?

highhopes on October 4, 2008 at 5:45 PM

funky chicken:

I keep hearing Bush collaborated with the Democrats and I wonder if people do not understand how our government works. Pelosi is Speaker of the House. Reid runs the Senate. They are the leaders in Congress, that is who Bush has to deal with. He can not force them to include Republicans, he can not tell them what to do. They are co-equal branches of government.

Bush did start upgrading the military after 9/11, but there was a lot involved in that. For one thing, the way we fight was changing, the enemy was different and that took a lot of time to adjust to. Government, including the Pentagon is a bureaucracy.

Should Bush have vetoed every bill with pork in it? maybe, but that would have meant risking that military buildup and a lot of other things at a time when the United States had been attacked.

I also think a lot of the attacks against his staff, from Brownie to Miers to Rove were politically motivated. It is just that when they come from the right somehow it is okay.

As for pushing for oil production, Bush has always done that and has been called a friend to oil companies for doing it. He also said years ago that he wanted more refineries and more nuclear power plants. Congress balked and the court cases piled up.

I am not saying Bush is perfect, he is not, but a lot of the things that people complain about with Bush were either not in his control to change or he lacked sufficient support from his party to carry out the policy.

But Bush has kept us safe. He did prevail in the FISA debate and he has managed to survive 8 years of the most constant negative press I have ever seen directed at a president.

BTW, if he had not pushed for those tax cuts the economy would have sunk years ago.

Terrye on October 4, 2008 at 5:52 PM

funky chicken on October 4, 2008 at 5:21 PM

I’m guilty of it myself, but not often. I did my bitchin’ during the primaries.

I fought the good fight, took my beating, and got up from the ground and said “It’s a fight for another day”.

Now, it’s time (way past time) to get Machiavellian and stop all this infighting. It’s utter nonsense, in a confused fog of anger.

There are folks here that rant, and I believe a few are sincere, about things that we cannot change at this time. There are others, whose judgment seems in complete conflict to the core philosophies they espouse. There are yet again others, whose aim seems very sinister.

I pledge to fight the enemy, and stand shoulder to shoulder with anyone, AND I MEAN ANYONE, that is committed to the complete decimation of Obama/Biden and their Marxist dream.

McCain/Palin ’08

Saltysam on October 4, 2008 at 5:54 PM

highhopes:

I trust McCain as much as I trust you. He is the nominee whether you like it or not. I do not feel betrayed by McCain, but there are times when I feel betrayed by people who say they are Republicans or conservatives but who seem to spend more time complaining about McCain than they do Obama.

Terrye on October 4, 2008 at 5:57 PM

What does McCain do for this group if we STFU and remain unquestioning and uncritical this last month?

highhopes on October 4, 2008 at 5:45 PM

Give us a farewell speech one day after.

Saltysam on October 4, 2008 at 5:57 PM

What does McCain do for this group if we STFU and remain unquestioning and uncritical this last month?

highhopes on October 4, 2008 at 5:45 PM

Oops. I thought you meant “what if we don’t STFU?”

*beating my head against the wall*

Saltysam on October 4, 2008 at 6:03 PM

Bush did start upgrading the military after 9/11, but there was a lot involved in that. For one thing, the way we fight was changing, the enemy was different and that took a lot of time to adjust to. Government, including the Pentagon is a bureaucracy.

Should Bush have vetoed every bill with pork in it? maybe, but that would have meant risking that military buildup and a lot of other things at a time when the United States had been attacked.

Sorry, husband’s in a position to know this stuff, and it’s just not true. And vetoing those porkfests would have freed up money to buy the stuff our guys needed over there instead of goodies for GOP cronies.

BUT, like I said, Bush does love the country. He wasn’t ready for the job, and wasn’t ready to tell Trent Lott and Ted Stevens and their house counterparts to knock off the BS.

Obama isn’t anywhere near as prepared for the job as Bush was, and isn’t a patriot.

That’s why he must be defeated. Bush made mistakes that cost the GOP dearly. But it’s time to look forward and work to defeat Obama.

highhopes and saltysam appear to believe that Obama will be a better commander in chief for our troops in a time of war than McCain. They are sick and wrong, but they don’t appear to be willing to change their opinion. so be it….but I’d rather do housework than talk to their type. That’s what I’m going to do now!

have a good evening.

funky chicken on October 4, 2008 at 6:07 PM

I trust McCain as much as I trust you. He is the nominee whether you like it or not. I do not feel betrayed by McCain, but there are times when I feel betrayed by people who say they are Republicans or conservatives but who seem to spend more time complaining about McCain than they do Obama.

Terrye on October 4, 2008 at 5:57 PM

Your trust of me is not of interest here. I’m not running for public office and, frankly, I’m glad you recognize that your faux conservatism has nothing to do with those of us fighting the good fight despite fools like you.

I’m an equal opportunity critic. I’ll point out flaws in Republicans and Democrats. That’s what we are all supposed to do instead of mindless drones like you who tell the rest of us to shut up in the name of unity. Yes, McCain is lesser of two evils but that doesn’t mean the man is worthy of uncritical and unquestioning support.

I stand by my CONSTITUTIONAL right to speak out against politicians despite your insistence that I don’t have that right. Put another way- go to hell you partisan of the right.

I have no more use for your type than the mindless drones of the left. Neither you are they represent the best of America because of your willingness to put “the win” over all else. What good is the win if you sacrifice principle to get it? The “for the greater good” line is worthless if you elect somebody with a history of going against your values. McCain is a political Judas to the GOP. He may be a better choice than Obama but please- YOU WORTHLESS FOOL- stop trying to pawn him off as somebody conservatives can trust.

highhopes on October 4, 2008 at 6:08 PM

highhopes on October 4, 2008 at 5:45 PM

Anyway, do you really want a farewell speech?

This election, IMHO, needs to be won in FL, PA, OH, CO, NV, MO, and VA.

He chose Palin, and now we have a chance to knock the snot out of Obama/Biden.

I got an idea. Let’s knock the snot out of ‘em!

Saltysam on October 4, 2008 at 6:08 PM

Terrye–you are right about Bush and tax cuts and FISA, etc.

Reagan’s tax cuts were also good for the economy, and he gets slammed for the increasing deficits even though it was a democrat congress that passed all the spending increases.

Sadly for us, it was a GOP congress that passed all the spending increases for most of Bush’s time in office.

see ya! :-)

funky chicken on October 4, 2008 at 6:10 PM

I stand by my CONSTITUTIONAL right to speak out against politicians despite your insistence that I don’t have that right.

highhopes on October 4, 2008 at 6:08 PM

Oh dear…I missed that part.

Saltysam on October 4, 2008 at 6:11 PM

ooooooooooo Saltysam, I’m sorry. I misread your post.

mea culpa. It appears I earned my penance of housework drudgery

funky chicken on October 4, 2008 at 6:11 PM

*beating my head against the wall*

Saltysam on October 4, 2008 at 6:03 PM

McCain isn’t worthy of unified support until he makes it clear that he isn’t using worthless fools who call for such measures to get elected so he can join Kennedy in reinstituting amnesty and other FACTS about his record.

Face it, McCain has run a bad campaign. Palin is the only bright spot in a lackluster performance. He ignored the right to court Hillary supporters and only when that isn’t enough do the mindless morons come back at those of us on the right demanding we now swear uncritical allegiance to a man who never represented the values of the right in the first place.

Why? Only because McCain is in a desperate position. Sorry if McCain wanted greater support from me he should have done more to court my vote back when he had choices. I’m not going to STFU and support a man who is only marginally less liberal than the other choice when it comes to social issues. With either McCain or Obama we will see amnesty for illegals, federal funding of embryonic stem cells, greater government intervention and other things I steadfastly reject.

I’m not giving McCain a pass this last month just because he and his worthless drones are getting scared about the poll numbers. McCain (and his drones) don’t respect my postion. Why should he get a pass?

highhopes on October 4, 2008 at 6:17 PM

saltysam appear to believe that Obama will be a better commander in chief for our troops in a time of war than McCain

funky chicken on October 4, 2008 at 6:07 PM

What in the world are you talking about?

I cannot believe you just attacked me like that. Is there any basis for that?

Have you actually read any of my comments?

Saltysam on October 4, 2008 at 6:17 PM

Oh dear…I missed that part.

Saltysam on October 4, 2008 at 6:11 PM

It’s called the First Amendment. I realize that isn’t familiar ground for the supporters who abridged the rights of individuals in the name of CFR but McCain has yet to do more with tinker around the edges. You might want to read it in its entirety before McCain and the Democrat Congress dismantle it.

highhopes on October 4, 2008 at 6:19 PM

highhopes:

My type? What type is that? The type that wants to win the damn election?

You know, if your guy had won the nomination I would have supported that person just as strongly, assuming it was not Ron Paul. That is what type I am.

My guess is you feel betrayed by anyone who does not say how high when you say jump.

Truth is you probably want McCain to be defeated. Then you can gloat, and say I told you so like some snotty teenager.

Well, I can be snotty teenager. All I have to say to you from this point forward is whatever.

Terrye on October 4, 2008 at 6:19 PM

highhopes on October 4, 2008 at 6:17 PM

He’s obviously not getting your support.

He IS getting mine.

And I was no friend of the McCain people before the primaries were over.

I know who my enemies are. You know who yours are.

Vote accordingly.

If you disregard power politics in a Machiavellian world, you aid the enemy through default. Principles be damned.

Saltysam on October 4, 2008 at 6:28 PM

McCain (and his drones) don’t respect my postion. Why should he get a pass?

highhopes on October 4, 2008 at 6:17 PM

LOL

They love you over at Obama’s house!

Have fun shredding the Constitution faster than we can save it.

Saltysam on October 4, 2008 at 6:35 PM

Letting Clinton in the White House gave us Ruth Ginsberg in the SCOTUS. Let’s not let a Marxist in the hallowed halls of the White House.

Mojave Mark on October 4, 2008 at 6:39 PM

saltysam, my apology is a couple posts up from yours. I came back to make sure you saw it. scroll up, please

honest mistake on my part, really

funky chicken on October 4, 2008 at 6:41 PM

Letting Clinton in the White House gave us Ruth Ginsberg in the SCOTUS. Let’s not let a Marxist in the hallowed halls of the White House.

Mojave Mark on October 4, 2008 at 6:39 PM

Which is how CFR got through judicial review.

See how it works, highhopes?

Saltysam on October 4, 2008 at 6:42 PM

funky chicken on October 4, 2008 at 6:41 PM

No worries. Thanks.

You and I can butt heads on something else, I’m sure. ;-)

Saltysam on October 4, 2008 at 6:44 PM

Obama was the lawyer and head trainer for ACORN.

That’s community organizing for you.

drjohn on October 4, 2008 at 6:58 PM

Holy crap! I leave you guys alone for 2 days and when I come back, the House is a MESS and everyone’s fighting! What is this all about kids? Are the trolls pretending that they can vote again?

NightmareOnKStreet on October 4, 2008 at 7:27 PM

Themes

I wrote a long comment (1821 words – oops) on one theme
McCain could pursue in a more aggresive mode – see
http://www.winface.com/blogs?p=27 . The basic message: ask the questions no one’s asking – about how he got to Harvard; about his relationships to known terrorists, dictators, and Suadi financiers; about his support for live birth abortion; his unwillingness to work with Republicans; his stances for and against just about everything; his eagerness to claim credit for the bailout – ten of them in total.

The second theme I’d like to see McCain go after is the need to reform the democratic party. More on this tomorrow.. but the main idea is that McCain does things like point to the bailout bill as a necessary bill with lots of bad provisions put in to get past a democrat dominated congress whose real motto is “no pork, no progress.” (and the country be damned).

Paul Murphy on October 4, 2008 at 7:31 PM

Highhopes, and others of similiar mindsets:

It’s not about McCain or anybody “deserving” support. It’s about supporting the country as we know it and opposing Obama bin Biden. The problem with your approach is that it sets up a moral/political equivalency between them. While both may be too far Left for my preference (personally, Ann Coulter is too far Left on a few things for me!!),

People, please think of it as, if nothing else, something along the lines of our alliance with the USSR to defeat Nazi Germany. Remember Churchill’s famous quote: ““If Hitler invaded Hell, I would at least make a favourable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons.”

And in that vein, even Ann Coulter has made some limited peace with McCain in order to defeat Obama bin Biden and elect Palin. Not complete peace, but arguably more so than found with AP, MM, and many people on here.

No one is saying to not maintain a critical eye or, once the election is over, to not stand for your positions. The point is to evaluate timing and targeting. Obama bin Biden are more dangerous. So holding fire on McCain until after this more dangerous enemy is stopped makes sense. Then, you can open up on President McCain all you want in that context.

I understand the “principle” some have, that they feel like they are surrendering some part of themselves to hold the tongue, as it were. Maybe they are. But if indeed they are, it’s not surrendering to McCain, it’s surrendering to the welfare of the country.

Which is worse: Letting McCain be McCain, and holding your fire for a bit in order to defeat the far worse enemy; or indulging in McCain bashing, and thus enabling that far worse enemy to win. Personally, that latter one sounds a lot worse. With the first one, you can preserve your principles (no one is saying to go RA-RA on McCain’s whole platform) and have (if successful) a stronger position from which to work to implement your policies. With the last one, you get your immediate indulgence, but pay the cost in the form of an administration which will be, to say the least, FAR more hostile to the policies you support.

It’s not about the people involved–not you, not me, not McCain, and in a certain sense, not even about the other ticket. It’s about the Cause we in general share, and doing what will best promote and protect it.

“If Hell itself endorsed McCain, I would at least make a favourable reference to the Devil on Hotair.com.”

Tommygun on October 4, 2008 at 8:04 PM

Tommygun on October 4, 2008 at 8:04 PM

Well said, sir. Very well said.

ManlyRash on October 4, 2008 at 8:24 PM

The only ones denying our Constitutional right to express an opinion are Obama supporters, particularly those in Missouri.

Since this is a campaign, timing matters. So it is a matter of good taste and etiquette during this final month to realize that to date, we have ALL had our say and plenty of it. So during this final lap to the finish line, either HELP conservatism win votes or hinder our efforts to defeat Obama the Marxist and enable the Democrats to maintain their majority rather than slim down their pickings.

McCain’s ticket will provide America the better leadership in three hugely important areas:
1. Nominate conservative readers of the Constitution to the SCOTUS.
2. Defend America from terrorism as an outstanding Commander in Chief.
3. Palin VP will provide McCain’s presidency truly effective communication. She and the people connect; there’s a mutual attraction, and she projects optimism alongside the importance of everyone taking on their own personal responsibilities, and realistic energy independence benefiting daily comforts and national security.

maverick muse on October 4, 2008 at 8:43 PM

Time to kick into hi-gear. Lets go McCain/Palin!!!
I don’t

johnnyU on October 4, 2008 at 8:50 PM

-I dont…
want my military ran by Obama. No way No how.

johnnyU on October 4, 2008 at 8:51 PM

I understand the “principle” some have, that they feel like they are surrendering some part of themselves to hold the tongue, as it were. Maybe they are. But if indeed they are, it’s not surrendering to McCain, it’s surrendering to the welfare of the country.

Tommygun on October 4, 2008 at 8:04 PM

Thanks for that TG.


“It’s about the Cause…”

Saltysam on October 4, 2008 at 9:51 PM

Yes. My ideology requires me to be loyal to America (at least, America as it has been). Tommygun on October 4, 2008 at 3:28 PM

When was that. Before civil rights? Before woman had the right to vote? When slavery was OK? Could you be more specific?

Chimpy on October 4, 2008 at 10:49 PM

FiveWays on October 4, 2008 at 4:46 PM

The link to the NYT article does not support the claim, “It’s all the dem’s fault.”

From your link>

“But by the time Mr. Mudd became Fannie’s chief executive in 2004, his company was under siege. Competitors were snatching lucrative parts of its business. Congress was demanding that Mr. Mudd help steer more loans to low-income borrowers. Lenders were threatening to sell directly to Wall Street unless Fannie bought a bigger chunk of their riskiest loans….. Between 2001 and 2004, the overall subprime mortgage market — loans to the riskiest borrowers — grew from $160 billion to $540 billion”

2001 to 2004: Republican President and the republicans controlled both houses. And this is worth repeating. “Lenders were threatening to sell directly to Wall Street unless Fannie bought a bigger chunk of their riskiest loans.”

“when Fannie Mae’s new chief executive, under pressure from Wall Street firms, Congress and company shareholders, took additional risks that pushed his company, and, in turn, a large part of the nation’s financial health, to the brink.
“Fannie had a longstanding and lucrative relationship with Countrywide, which sold more loans to Fannie than anyone else.
But at that meeting, Countrywide threatened to upend their partnership unless Fannie started buying Countrywide’s riskier loans.”

Blackmail!

“Investors were also pressuring Mr. Mudd/fannie to take greater risks.
On one occasion, a hedge fund manager telephoned a senior Fannie executive to complain that the company was not taking enough gambles in chasing profits.
“Are you stupid or blind?” the investor roared, according to someone who heard the call, but requested anonymity. “Your job is to make me money!””

“Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. grew concerned about Fannie’s and Freddie’s stability. He sent a deputy, Robert K. Steel, a former colleague from his time at Goldman Sachs, to speak with Mr. Mudd and his counterpart at Freddie.
Mr. Steel’s orders, according to several people, were to get commitments from the companies to raise more money as a cushion against all the new loans. But when he met with the firms, Mr. Steel made few demands and seemed unfamiliar with Fannie’s and Freddie’s operations, according to someone who attended the discussions.
Rather than getting firm commitments, Mr. Steel struck handshake deals without deadlines.”

Who appointed Paulson?

““There were other options on the table short of a takeover,” Mr. Mudd/fannie said. But as long as Treasury refused to disclose its goals, it was impossible for the company to act, according to people close to Fannie.”

“Mr. Paulson ended Fannie and Freddie’s independence, with up to $200 billion in taxpayer money to replenish the companies’ coffers.
The move failed to stanch a spreading panic in the financial world. In fact, some analysts say, the takeover accelerated the hysteria by signaling that no company, no matter how large, was strong enough to withstand the losses stemming from troubled loans.
Within weeks, Lehman Brothers was forced to declare bankruptcy, Merrill Lynch was pushed into the arms of Bank of America, and the government stepped in to bail out the insurance giant the American International Group.”

How the financial markets fell for a 400-year-old sucker bet.

Chimpy on October 4, 2008 at 10:55 PM

It’s not enough to merely say Obama was friends with an unrepentant terrorist which shows bad judgment. What ALSO has to be drilled into the America people from now until election day is the fact for 5 years Obama served as CEO of Wm Ayers’ Annenberg Challenge which was formed to’ improve the Chicago public schools’.

Over this 5 year period, the two of them spent $156 million, at the end of which, the University of Illinois at Chicago reported the Annenberg Challenge project had made no discernible difference to the school system

Q.# 1 – Where did the $156 million go????
A. The vast majority went for salaries/expenses of the “Community Activist” groups which were given “grant monies” by the Annenberg Challenge Project.

Q. #2 – Since this is the only real ‘executive experience’ Obama has had in his entire life, (after all managing a $156 million budget is pretty significant) why hasn’t his Chairmanship of the Annenberg Challenge appeared on his resume thus far??

alwyr on October 4, 2008 at 11:14 PM

The link to the NYT article does not support the claim, “It’s all the dem’s fault.”

Chimpy on October 4, 2008 at 10:55 PM

I never said it did. I said it gave McCain an opening, because the article does cite Democrat involvment too.

This is the NYT’s after all.

Oh, and Paulson is a Chicago Democrat who attended Harvard just like Obama. See what Bush got for playing bi-partisan with a Dem?

FiveWays on October 4, 2008 at 11:16 PM

Over this 5 year period, the two of them spent $156 million, at the end of which, the University of Illinois at Chicago reported the Annenberg Challenge project had made no discernible difference to the school system

Q.# 1 – Where did the $156 million go????
A. The vast majority went for salaries/expenses of the “Community Activist” groups which were given “grant monies” by the Annenberg Challenge Project.

Q. #2 – Since this is the only real ‘executive experience’ Obama has had in his entire life, (after all managing a $156 million budget is pretty significant) why hasn’t his Chairmanship of the Annenberg Challenge appeared on his resume thus far??

alwyr on October 4, 2008 at 11:14 PM

Ditto. I’ve said this elsewhere too. Voters can get their mind around that kind of waste and incompetence. My recollection is that it was a $100M grant.

I like your number better, and mine is from a recollection of an article I read a week or so ago–yeah, I know, nice memory.

BuckeyeSam on October 5, 2008 at 12:29 AM

Tommygun on October 4, 2008 at 8:04 PM

The problem I have with you people is the way you dismiss the issues and demand unquestioning support. I get the “unity” thing but to a man/woman/whatever you attack my character in your defense.

I’m about to leave the Navy after 23 years of active service. To have idiots here question my loyalty to the US because I am not a McCain clone is offensive. Terrye is a complete nutjob who should be sent to the loony bin.

highhopes on October 5, 2008 at 12:46 AM

FiveWays on October 4, 2008 at 11:16 PM

I never said it did.

You are correct and I apologies for inferring you did. While scanning through the comments there were a lot of “it’s all the dem’s fault”, and I wasn’t checking who the authors were.

I said it gave McCain an opening, because the article does cite Democrat involvement too.

I have seen a lot of articles blaming both Republican and Democrat politicians. I haven’t been keeping score but I’ll concede to HA commenter’s it’s more D’s then R’s, for now. If McCain adopts your strategy it might open a whole new can of worms. That could be his reason for holding back on making the issue. And at the debate, the point was hammered home that McCain’s record shows he is against regulation and for deregulation of existing ones. He didn’t challenge that. In our “sound bite” culture I think that is going to trump, “more D’s are complicit in the economic mess then R’s“, in the Presidential race. Your tactic could work well in House and Senate race’s.

Paulson is a Chicago Democrat who attended Harvard

From Wiki on Paulson>

“Paulson was Staff Assistant to the Assistant Secretary of Defense at The Pentagon from 1970 to 1972. He then worked for the administration of U.S. President Richard Nixon, serving as assistant to John Ehrlichman from 1972 to 1973. He joined Goldman Sachs in 1974”

He is a Laissez-Faire Capitalist which is far from Democrat party ideas.

“There is increasing evidence that Paulson was influential with two U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Chairmen, William H. Donaldson and Christopher Cox, in receiving restraint in the Commission’s exercise of oversight requirements.
In 2004, at the request of the major Wall Street investment houses, including Goldman Sachs, then headed by Paulson, the Commission agreed unanimously to release the major investment houses from the net capital rule, the requirement that their brokerages hold reserve capital that limited their leverage and risk exposure. The complaint that was put forth by the investment banks was of increasingly onerous regulatory requirements — in this case, not U.S. regulator oversight, but European Union regulation of the foreign operations of US investment groups. In the immediate lead-up to the decision, EU regulators also acceded to US pressure, and agreed not to scrutinize foreign firms’ reserve holdings if the SEC agreed to do so instead. The 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, however, put the parent holding company of each of the big American brokerages beyond SEC oversight. In order for the agreement to go ahead, the investment banks lobbied for a decision that would allow “voluntary” inspection of their parent and subsidiary holdings by the SEC.
During this repeal of the net capital rule, SEC Chairman Donaldson agreed to the establishment of a risk management office that would monitor signs of future problems. This office was eventually dismantled by Chairman Cox, after discussions with Paulson. According to the New York Times, “While other financial regulatory agencies criticized a blueprint by Mr. Paulson, the [new] Treasury secretary, that proposed to reduce their stature — and that of the S.E.C. — Mr. Cox did not challenge the plan, leaving it to three former Democratic and Republican commission chairmen to complain that the blueprint would neuter the agency.”

See what Bush, (and the tax payers), got for playing bi-partisan with a Dem Laissez-Faire Capitalist who as CEO of Goldman Sachs is part of the “old boys network”.

Chimpy on October 5, 2008 at 3:13 AM

The listless, dependent sheep in this country don’t care . . . they’d sell the flag, their souls and their first born for a 2 point up click in their portfolio. Frankly, I’m beginning to wonder if this country and its self indulgent population are even worth fighting for anymore.

rplat on October 5, 2008 at 9:28 AM

Tommygun on October 4, 2008 at 8:04 PM

The problem I have with you people is the way you dismiss the issues and demand unquestioning support. I get the “unity” thing but to a man/woman/whatever you attack my character in your defense.

I’m about to leave the Navy after 23 years of active service. To have idiots here question my loyalty to the US because I am not a McCain clone is offensive. Terrye is a complete nutjob who should be sent to the loony bin.

highhopes on October 5, 2008 at 12:46 AM

You are creating a false choice. It’s not a matter of “unquestioning support” or being a “McCain clone” versus holding your own positions. That goes to agreement with all his policies. It’s a matter the approach you take in addressing them. The “support” being sought is political far more than ideological. No two people agree on everything, but they still sometimes must work together against a common foe.

In World War I, a moviemaker was jailed for making a movie about the Revolutionary War. Why? Because of fear it might arouse anti-British feelings. “But, but, we have differences with the Brits on that! He should express them!” some might say. But the problem was, we were allied with the UK then despite our differences, and it was feared the movie might undermine that alliance against a common foe. No one said the moviemaker couldn’t hold his differences with the British on the matter, but in that situation, expressing them posed, in some people’s minds, enough of a danger that it should be restrained.

If your commanding officer orders a bad maneuver, do you criticize him in front of the entire crew? No. You support the decision and try to make it work. In private, you might express your reservations to him/her, but in the end you fall in line for the Cause.

What’s being talked about here is FAR LESS than that! All that’s being asked is to not undermine the alliance or the war effort. There are people whose votes we need who latch onto anything critical about a candidate and get turned against them by it. Say what you will about some of those people (I can hear it now, “But they are idiots”), nonetheless the REALITY OF THE SITUATION is that we need their votes. Maybe it shouldn’t be that way, but it IS that way.

Years ago, I saw a video by Gabrielle Reilly (yes, the bikini model) criticizing the “anti-war” movement. She used the analogy of your friend getting into a bar fight. When that happens, you don’t jump up on the pool table and say how bad your friend is. The implication was, you stand with your friend (and then later, after the threat is eliminated, and maybe in private, you tell him he was an idiot or something).

I said above you were creating a false choice. One can hold critical views of McCain, but at the same time be reserved or careful in what one says about those views in order to defeat the far greater threat. Those two things–holding views, but not expressing them in such a manner–are not contradictory. It’s a matter of self-restraint, not capitulation.

However, there is something in this election that indeed IS a true (forced) choice: It’s either McCain or Hussein. That’s it. One or the other. You can’t have both (barring some really freaky Electoral College thing) and you can’t have someone else.
You said something about your character being attacked. If by that you mean my references to people not showing self-restraint and seeking personal gratification, then yes, perhaps I am guilty as charged. Too often, the objection raised to what I suggest here boils down to “But I have the right to say this! And I want to say this!” To be blunt, that sounds very immature. Sometimes we have to NOT do what we want to do, even if we have the right.

I believe it was John Adams who talked about the Constitution being for a religious people, and being “wholly unsuited” for any other. The ultimate point of that, beyond “religion”, is that a free people–that is, a people with political freedom–will nonetheless need something to restrain them. That is, a SELF-RESTRAINT. Without it, that political freedom we all cherish will ultimately lead only to our demise, and the loss of that freedom. A person may have the right to say something, but have a higher principle or duty which tells them to not say it.

For me, loyalty to America “as it has been” (i.e., traditionally, before Hussein takes the White House) is that restraint. To use “freedom of speech” in order to tear down–not just criticize a policy–the country seems morally contradictory to me. If they want to leave, that’s fine. But while here, there is a higher principle that requires a certain restraint. They may not have to be all RA-RA for it, but at least don’t undermine it. And in this election, given the true choice we face, in my view that means being a little more careful in our criticism of McCain.

The alternate is far, far worse.

Tommygun on October 5, 2008 at 9:55 AM

The thing I’m concerned about- and noone talks about is … What can McC and Palin do with a Democrat/far left congress and very few Republicans with any balls? Nothing will be done or can be “reformed” if Congress does not change. Palin can name names all she wants but with the MSM on the lib side-noone will listen-except us. Congress has to change- and it looks like Frankenstein is up by 9 in MN- God help us all.

kareyk on October 4, 2008 at 4:04 PM

McCain could issue executive orders that W was too stupid to issue. For example, declaring all items passed as earmarks as items to NOT be spent, due to lack of proper budgetary authorization.

Then there are ineffective programs that McCain (or Palin) could cut the budget on, to force congress to support the ineffective programs. Adding administrative requirements and approvals, transferring personnel to more useful programs, etc.

Also, an Attorney General with cajones could investigate voter fraud, criminal activities by congressional staff, and ACORN.

Right_of_Attila on October 5, 2008 at 9:56 AM

Term limits remove accountability by vote. If you have term limits, you have no incentive to listen to voters. Party machines would actually increase, not decrease in power. When in office, it increases incentive to take special interest money to pass sh1tty bills, etc to secure financial security at the end of terms. Also decreases quality of politician as it is dead-end street. Punishes states with great representatives and diminishes their rights fro the sake of cleaning up states that have bad representatives.

Spirit of 1776 on October 4, 2008 at 4:36 PM

Sorry. Not buying what you’re selling. Party machines are already so locked in (Dems and Repubs) it’s pathetic. Political office is not a place for lifetime employment nor is it a place to go to earn a pension — all of which needs to be ended. And why not some curbs on “lobbying” while were are it? Free Speech, my a$$!

“Voter Accountability” is doing NOTHING, ZERO, ZIP, NADA for folks who are still in elected office like Robert Byrd (55 years), John Dingell (52 years), Daniel Inouye (49 years), Ted Kennedy (45 years), John Conyers (43 years), Ted Stevens (39 years), David Obey (39 years), Charlie Rangel (37 years), and on and on and on…

Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Congressmen_by_longevity_of_service

It’s ridiculous in the extreme to think that voter accountability works. If term limits are good enough for the executive branch, then term limits are good enough for the legislative. It’s time for Congress to take its long overdue medicine…

eanax on October 5, 2008 at 11:06 AM

“Also, an Attorney General with cajones could investigate voter fraud, criminal activities by congressional staff, and ACORN.” Right_of_Attila
You might want to add CAIR, La Raza, MECHA, etc to what should be a very long list of anti-American orgs and programs; maybe we could cut back on aid to countries who give zip to their people…just a thought.
De-fund the terrorists, (including opening up domestic oil drilling) and we will have more money to start paying down our debt and we’ll create jobs to keep the economy moving and growing.

Christine on October 5, 2008 at 1:55 PM

Mccain should not only take off the gloves but his shoes and stay home, you lost buddy, sorry.

foxone on October 5, 2008 at 8:05 PM

As the 2008 presidential campaign hurtles into its final days, John McCain confronts a choice: He can either start telling the public about the real Barack Obama, or he can lose.

For much of his career, McCain has been a media darling. He could count on the press to carry his water as long as he was a “maverick” Republican, driving more conservative members of his party crazy. But as he surely knows by now, when it comes to Barack Obama and the press, all bets are off. In covering Obama, the press has adopted a “don’t ask/don’t tell” policy designed to boost the least-vetted, least-known candidate ever to seek the presidency. It isn’t by accident that the media has denied all less-than-glowing stories about Obama the kind of consistent, sustained coverage that allows them to penetrate public consciousness.

If McCain is going to have a chance at winning, he must make sure that the public becomes thoroughly acquainted with the real Barack Obama – the most radical presidential nominee ever. And because the press evidently intends to abdicate its responsibility to acquaint voters with the less-popular parts of Obama’s record, he’ll have to rely on paid advertising to do it.

For starters, McCain should consider running a series of “Did You Know” ads about Barack Obama. He should ask voters, “Did you know that:

Read the whole thing:

http://townhall.com/columnists/CarolPlattLiebau/2008/10/06/do_you_know_the_real_barack_obama

Keemo on October 6, 2008 at 8:18 AM

Pff. The only one I see taking gloves off in that campaign is Sarah Palin. McAmnesty’s too busy making friends with the wrong people.

Spanglemaker on October 6, 2008 at 10:22 AM

Hey, Team McCain. That bailout sure is working. Loser.

Angry Dumbo on October 6, 2008 at 10:33 AM

Term limits remove accountability by vote. If you have term limits, you have no incentive to listen to voters. Party machines would actually increase, not decrease in power. When in office, it increases incentive to take special interest money to pass sh1tty bills, etc to secure financial security at the end of terms. Also decreases quality of politician as it is dead-end street. Punishes states with great representatives and diminishes their rights fro the sake of cleaning up states that have bad representatives.

Spirit of 1776 on October 4, 2008 at 4:36 PM

It’s a very good point you raise & I honestly never thought about it that way. So now then what do we do when the ignorant populace keeps voting in these monsters?
I don’t have a clue either, other than better education in school in Govt. class.
That is truly what we need. Kids need to be able to think critically. That means they need good parents, as well as teachers.
Gonna need a social revolution for that change.

Badger40 on October 6, 2008 at 11:34 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4