“Spending, the conduct of the war in Iraq for years, growth in the size of government, larger than any time since the Great Society, laying a $10 trillion debt on future generations of America, owing $500 billion to China, obviously, failure to both enforce and modernize the [financial] regulatory agencies that were designed for the 1930s and certainly not for the 21st century, failure to address the issue of climate change seriously,” McCain told the Washington Times when asked to name his criticisms of the current president.
“Those are just some of them”
He’s hanging an awful lot solely around President Bush’s neck. (I’m pretty sure GWB didn’t cause Global Warming)
Nonetheless I think that’s what you call a Maverick.
Agree or not, I dare Barack Obama to do this. Even Once. Stand on principle. Challenge his party leaders.
He couldn’t even do this with Bill Ayers, Tony Rezko or Rev. Wright.
You can’t vote “Present” as President. But apparently you can exhibit an astounding lack of accomplishments and leadership and be a candidate for President.
Do you think Obama would ever veto anything? Do you think he’ll temper the designs on socialism that Reid and Pelosi have in mind (or will it be his idea?)?
Would he be Congress’ lapdog?
“Ruff!”
failure to address the issue of climate change seriously
Carbon cap & trade in a recession? It would be the Smoot-Hawley Act of the 21st century.
If Obama’s “party leaders” had done half as much to fuck up the country as Bush, I’d agree he should “challenge” them. They haven’t. He needn’t.
If the GOP had done half as much to fuck up the country as Pelosi & Reid, I’d agree he should “challenge” them. They haven’t. He needn’t.
See? Anyone can do it. Just make a snarky assertion without even trying to make an arguable point. Insert politician/party as you like.
I’m still waiting, AC, for an example of anything that Obama has accomplished that qualifies him to be president.
Being president (aka ‘chief editor’) of Harvard Law Review won’t cut it since no president of HLR has ever gone onto become president.
Past what AC’s point is, which is dead on, McCain can SAY this, but actions speak louder than words, he didn’t DO this, he voted along with Bush, time and again. Most people I know, including of course me, feel McCain abandoned his “Mavericky-ness” after 2002 when he basically got the high sign from the Bush Administration that if he played ball, they’d back his candidacy in 2008 (after all, Cheney didn’t want the Presidency).
Actions are far more important than words JR, and bluntly, Obama HAS stood up to his party. The majority of his party voted for the war, voted for funding without limits (eventually), and certainly his party leadership did. He objected, as he should have. He proposed holding the President accountable in Iraq, his party leaders initially supported it, but later waffled, Obama didn’t.
Suggesting now that Obama is the one who lacks intestinal fortitude, rather than the other way round (that Reid and Hillary lacked it) flies in the face of the truth.
Terry, by that measure, no Arizona Senator, nor Alaska Governor has ever gone on to be President. No Vietnam fighter pilot has ever gone on to be President, no Vietnam war prisoner has ever gone on to be President, nor any WWII prisoner for that matter. Your selective hearing about qualifications are silly.
Obama has lead the most successful grass root organizing campaigns in the history of the Democratic party.
Terry,
I’d also challenge you on one point. NO ONE, certainly not any Democrat, owes you, or any other Republican, any justification for voting FOR someone. Your party engages in extraordinary negative campaigning, ceaselessly making the issues about the Democrat. In 1980, exit polling data indicated that up to 70% of voters who voted FOR Reagan chiefly did it because they were voting AGAINST Carter. But for negative voting, Reagan would never have been President.
There is little to recommend McCain as different from Bush – he supports the same ‘push the money up’ strategy that Bush did, and failed miserably, rather than truly advocating and working toward real job creation and real wealth growth in the middle class. I am voting againt McCain because he’s a retread, not FOR Obama for more than anything other than he’s better than the alternative. I owe no one, least of all the neo-con hate crowd, ANY explanation.
Roosh, I thought CRA caused all the problems in the world – McCain didn’t blame CRA, why not? (here’s a hint: because it wasn’t the culprit.)
Actually, Obama’s party leaders have arguably done more then Bush to mess things up. By suggesting a quick pullout from Iraq, they’ve emboldened our enemies, and by mandating loose lending standards, they’ve caused the current economic crisis.
Not that you’ll figure out that this is indeed true, but it is. Obama doesn’t confront his party because, quite frankly, Obama is promising more of the failed policies of Howard Dean and Barney Frank. Hopefully voters figure it out in time.
Actually, Obama’s party leaders have arguably done more then Bush to mess things up.
Even beyond that, Frank, Dodd and (at that time) Obama AREN’T the party’s leaders and look what they managed to “accomplish”.
Franklin Raines makes Ken Lay look like an amateur. AND he is a campaign advisor on housing issues for who?
Oh yeah.
Peev, once again you are wrong on each of your points.
Your party engages in extraordinary negative campaigning, ceaselessly making the issues about the Democrat.
I am not a Republican.
McCain abandoned his “Mavericky-ness” after 2002 when he basically got the high sign from the Bush Administration that if he played ball, they’d back his candidacy in 2008
Bush did not back McCain or any other candidate in the primaries. Bush would back any republican once he got the nomination.
The majority of democrats in congress did not vote for the Iraq War.
Why bother to go on? You post “facts” that you say bring you to conclusions, and when those facts are demonstrated to be indisputably wrong you go looking for more facts rather than question your initial conclusion. You are un-teachable, peev.
Are we talking “party leaders” currently in power or Democrats from the last 40 years or so? Hmmm…let us count the ways they have “screwed” this country:
Education. Totally screwed up thanks to the lib’s brilliant ideas.
Black family structure. Ditto
Crime rates. Ditto
Social Patholigies (teen pregnancies, broken families, single moms). Ditto
Yep, swell ideas. One moral collapse isn’t enough…we have to make it utter and complete by going socialist on top of everything else.
Your party engages in extraordinary negative campaigning, ceaselessly making the issues about the Democrat.
Peev must not have seen any Madia ads.
Obama-Pelosi-Reid-and the worst of all-Waxman. Hell, why not put Shelia Jackson Lee in charge of the justice dept.
“Your party engages in extraordinary negative campaigning” Well, duh! That`s because we don`t have the MSM looking into or saying anything negative about The One. They`re too busy going negative on McCain and Palin. So until you admit the fact that the MSM is going “extraordinary negative” on any and all Republicans, and in fact much worse than anything any Rep. has done, your thought has no merit.
Am I the only one who’s really tired of Obama and his supporters saying he was against the Iraq war? He wasn’t in a position to cast a vote, was not aware of the intelligence available to members of congress, and had no responsibility or accountability on the matter
In Obama’s anti-war speech in late 2002 he didn’t deny that Saddam had WMD. Instead he spoke out against the “neocons ideology”, naming only two “neocons” with recognizably Jewish names: Perle and Wolfowitz. Ouch! Guess that means his mentor was as much Jesse Jackson as William Ayers. From Jackson he learned that a black politician in Chicago will pay no price for Jew-bashing.
In the speech Obama also expressed complete confidence that the international community and the UN inspectors would keep Saddam contained and toothless. He laso speaks eloquently of our “former enemy & current ally” Russia.
It’s not a very good speech. It is much more angry and in-your-face than the speeches he began giving after he decided to run for prez.
Well, Jesse says that once The Messiah gets in office, the secret society of Jews will no longer run this country.
Unfortunately, they will not be replaced by a secret society of Orthodox Lutherans or real Catholics.
Terry blathered: “In Obama’s anti-war speech in late 2002 he didn’t deny that Saddam had WMD. Instead he spoke out against the “neocons ideology”, naming only two “neocons” with recognizably Jewish names: Perle and Wolfowitz.”
Dude. I’ll give you Wolfowitz, I guess. But “Richard Perle” ain’t exactly “Shlomo Kikenstein,” you know.
Though Angryclown doesn’t have the laminated “Who’s a Jew?” wallet card you wingnuts all carry.
AC, did you move into peev’s hall of mirrors or did peev move to your place in what Jesse Jackson calls ‘hymietown’?
How can you possibly have little accomplishments and still be a candidate for President? Many of you want to vote for him? Obama and his ilk, the liberal illuminati extremists, have done more to screw things up for all of us. Examples: education, crime, broken families and single mothers. Don’t vote the bum in!