The Respectfully Republican Conversation

Linda,

With Obama losing it in a meeting where at least half the people there were on his side, what should we expect when he goes to talks with leaders of countries that would like to see us all dead?  Will he be Mr. Cool after they denounce us to his face for an hour, or will he come home and cower and we'll all have to be looking over our shoulders?

I think McCain has a real predicament.  Yes, his commercials may show Franklin Raines and Johnson but, the biggest culprits in this mess are the leaders negotiating to get out of it and McCain does not want to jeopardize the negotiations. 

When this is over he has plenty of ammunition---- but even with that it will be hard to explain it and have it make sense in a thirty second commercial .

Secondly, with the bailout, all these grand plans of healthcare etc etc etc are down the tubes----

Obama plans to take the troops out of Iraq an place them in Afghanistan a war that will be more like Vietnam in terrain and difficulty, and will require bigger and bigger defense expenditures-----so depending on the money saved by getting out of Iraq to fund the grand plans is a non-starter.  It will be eaten up by an ever growing and difficult presence in Afghanistan -- never mind the ambiguity and implications of Pakistan in this mix.

Personally, I think in this next debate on the economy it will be a point that will need to be stressed by McCain.........

There are earmarks in the new plan the Senate just approved.  An earmark to a toy arrow company?  This is so hard to do.  They can't stop spending on nonsense.  Our only hope is now in the House.  If they move one comma it has to come back to the Senate for another vote.  If they don't move a comma, it's politics as usual.  I don't have it in me to read 450 pages of nonsense.

The reason why I want so desperately to have McCain in the White House is because he said he'll name names of who is ruining all legislation.  Who put Acorn in the first plan, who put a toy arrow company in this one?  And why? 

If McCain said anything now about the earmarks, he will be the reason why it failed.  They tie everyone's hands behind their backs because this is such a sensitive issue now.  I want every one of them who doesn't know the value of a billion dollars to be outed!  I want the project named and the reason why we're donating to it.

Maria, They've already attacked McCain for showing some temper at the last debate.  I personally didn't see it, but they're laying in wait.  I think it was at the time when he said: "Oh Please".  He's walking the tight rope, but he has to be himself also.  Let it rip, we'll decide which one is real and which one just looks plain smug.  Oh, and welcome.

Welcome Maria! 

Rosemary - I did not see any temper at the debate at all - what was he supposed to do - be totally passive? Geez - that is all the pundits were looking for. I actually thought Obama seemed a little more angry - of course they interpreted it as "cool".

I don't think McCain can wait until the election to start naming names - he needs to come out with his boxing gloves on.

From what Obama said in the debate - he is not willing to cut any of his spending programs so be prepared to have your taxes raised. I know he says just those making over $250,000 but with this $700 billion on top of what he plans on spending he would need to have all those making over $250,000 a year hand over their paychecks. That won't happen so we will be told in a fireside "chat" that we all will have to fork over more money - there goes the 95% who would get a tax break (actually less than 95% - the 95% includes those who don't pay taxes in the first place! but hey it sounds good!). I realize that whoever is elected they may have to raise taxes but at least McCain does not plan on going on a spending spree and I can believe him when he says he will veto legislation that contains pork and will cut programs that waste money no matter who has their support.

AS - I find it kind of funny that all they can attack him on is his age. He looks better than a lot of guys half his age and has more energy than they do too. Will have to go take a look at the ad and give them my two cents if necessary.

Suz,

And if he was totally passive, they'd say something about that too.  The press is ready to lunge and we have to sit here and pretty much take it.  They own the news and all we can do is turn off our TV's so we don't get exposed to x rated reporting.  It's their reputations that doesn't seem to mean too much to them anymore.  We can only watch them destroy themselves.

Some historian was talking on the radio about the press has always been in one camp or the other since the Jefferson days.  I just didn't seem to notice how blantant it was till now.  Where have you gone Walter Cronkite?

Pansy_Aston wrote:  

The general American public doesn't trust the media, and they don't trust the talking heads. They vote with their gut."

I hope you're right, Pansy.  My children and some of their friends I KNOW FOR A FACT don't vote with their gut.  They what they read in their emails and then ask me if that's correct, and tell them know..give them plenty of info and still they stuck on stupid! 

I believe I posted that one of my dd's friends sent me some "stuff" via email.  And the "fact checker" was extremely biased.  I told her where to go for unbiased checking, and that I may find things there that I don't want to know.  I told her she'd be sorry for sending me political stuff..her email was so dramatic (as usual for her) and she made it sound like the sky was falling.  She said this was a very important election year.  I replied back that every presidential election was import (plus a lot of other stuff)..LOL  Yesterday I got a short email (finally) back from her saying that I had gotten smart and her head was spinning..that she'd have to read what I sent to her (HAHAHA..NEVER HAPPEN) and she'd get back to me.  There ya go!  STUCK ON STUPID!  Love that phrase.  Oh, and I sent her some YouTube links to see exactly what came out of the dems' mouth about Fannie and Freddie.  I told her just because this crap has happened and is on Bush's watch that it wasn't all HIS fault.

Shirley

Felicia - I hope you are right.

Rosemary - It is true - the press has always been in one camp or the other - but usually they were more civil to the other side. This year it is so obvious who they are for. I just sent an e-mail to CNN asking "What has Obama's campaign promised you guys". It is ridiculous. You know if Dodd, Franks, and Obama were Republicans - there would be an outcry for an investigation into this financial mess we are in. You would see the video of Franks claiming that Freddie and Fannie would not go down in flames a few years ago after being warned by the Treasury Secretary back then - think his name was Snow - all in the name of affordable housing for the poor - well it turned out not to be so affordable didn't it! That video would be shown 24/7! They would be investigating the Obama campaigns financial ties with Wall Street and all h*ll would break loose. But no they have drunk the Democrats Kool-Aid and the silence on all of the why's of this mess are deafening in the MSM.

Watch this video - it is kind of long but Wow! If Obama supporters would only watch. By voting for Obama you will get more of the same:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs

Suzfive, I've seen that video and believe I sent it to a couple of Obama supporters.  Like I said, they're STUCK ON STUPID!  I think that link shoule be posted on every page from now on.  Perhaps someone other than we, who are so intelligent Ones, and KNOW THE TRUTH will  stand up and take heed.

Shirley

How many people know this story about Cindy McCain.  It brought tears to my eyes.  We know as bc survivors what it feels like to be in her shoes.

www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-041408-cindy-mccain-stroke,0,2287002.story

chicagotribune.com

Suddenly, she couldn't talk

"I could hear the words in my head and I couldn't get them out of my mouth," Cindy McCain said of her stroke.

By Jill Zuckman

Tribune correspondent

April 15, 2008

She thought the problem was jet lag.

On a trip to Japan and Singapore in 2004 with her two sons and two of their friends, Cindy McCain just didn't feel right.

"Usually I'm the first one out the door and I'm dragging everybody-let's go, let's go, let's go," she said. "But I was just underpowered."

The morning after she got back to Phoenix from the trip, McCain met several friends for brunch. Suddenly, she couldn't talk.

"I didn't want anyone to think I was drunk or ripped on something, and I was trying to get up from the table and go to the restroom and I couldn't walk," she said, recalling the stroke that changed her life.

Her friends could see immediately what was happening because her face had started to droop, along with her hand and her leg. They rushed her to the hospital.

"I could hear the words in my head and I couldn't get them out of my mouth," she said.

Her husband was in New York, meeting with his book editor. Mayor Michael Bloomberg loaned him his private plane to quickly get back to Phoenix. Her kids learned what happened on CNN.

As she headed for the hospital, "I thought, I wish I had one more chance to tell my family I loved them," she said.

McCain had high blood pressure-the primary cause for strokes-and she wouldn't take her medicine, thinking that, at 49, she was just too young to need it.

"It was a hell of a lesson to learn," she said of the medical scare that put her in intensive care for two weeks.

Upon her return home, she decided to move to Coronado, Calif.-alone-and concentrate on getting better, away from the stress of daily life.

From May through September, she stayed in California, working on radically changing her diet, resting and exercising.

"I started walking when I first got there and I couldn't even walk a block," she said.

That block eventually gave way to miles of walking the beach each day and then to jogging. She gave up salt and sugar and caffeine, shedding pounds until she became model-thin.

"The weird thing is, too, I became afraid of food," she said. "It's really stupid, but when something like this happens to you and threatens your life, everything changed, absolutely everything."

Less than a year after her stroke, she donned a Stroke Association vest and ran-walked the Rock 'n' Roll Arizona Marathon with friends.

"When I came across the finish line it was such a big deal because I had overcome a stroke. We came across and everyone was crying and coming apart," she said. "It was a good day, a good day."

Copyright © 2008, Chicago Tribune

Shirley - I sent that video link to my brother who is supporting Obama - or at least he was until this financial mess thing started - he has been very quiet lately - Hmmm.... he does a lot of research on his own - probably found out already on his own it was the Dems fault. If they would only get their heads out of the vat of Kool-Aid long enough.......

I think we need to start an e-mail campaign to all the news outlets demanding that they report on who caused this mess. If I had money, I would take out a full page ad in the New York Times (where the Kool-Aid drinkers get their news and think it is the gospel). They should look up in the NYT archives - before they were in the tank - they reported on some of this stuff.

Felicia - I am still hoping Gwen Ifill will be fair, but she should have recused herself without being asked. Writing a book - even if the chapter on Senator Obama is not yet written could be construed as a conflict of interest. She did also write that article on Michelle Obama - it was not just an article about the Obama's it was obviously written by someone who is mesmerized by them. Being a debate moderator is a little bit different than being a journalist. Like a judge is expected to recuse him/herself from cases that he/she has a perceived interest in - when you have a book that may or may not benefit from one of the debaters election victory - you should recuse yourself - better yet she should have declined when they offered her the moderator position. JMHO.

Felicia,

I wish all the reporters took a lesson from Chuck.  I did check to see if Ifill did a piece on McCain, but I couldn't find anything.  Wouldn't it have been nice if she did do one, and we'd all be talking about something else today.  Anyway, I think she'll be fair in her questioning, and if not, we'll be all over her. 

I'm going to try and post some flip-flops from Obama.  And, try to understand some of his utter nonsense.  Talk about Palin..listen to the possible next commander-in-chief.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NP06C37o35Q&eurl=http://hoosiersformccain.blogspot.com/2008/09/obama-change-his-mind-at-least.html  

Here's the rest of his naivety on weapons.    

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qX9M54_8rRk

Obama:  I still would not support the surge in Iraq

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBO5s8NUOxw&feature=related  

Obama says the surge will fail, we will fail.

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJbsQ7oUQWw&feature=related  

Let's put blame on McCain.  Obama doesn't know crap.  Let's see what the hell he's talking about.  He doesn't listen to the generals on the ground.  He makes no sense whatsoever.  We would have a disaster if we had pulled out.  What the hell is he talking about!?  GOOD GRIEF!  

Obama:  Let's not talk about what I said about the surge. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5K7NZ9ULVuk&feature=related

Then on Bill O'Reilly.  Unbelievable that this man could be our next president.  GOOD GRIEF!  Did I already say that?

Barrack Obama admits the surge worked on the Bill O'Reilly Show

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Udt92OwPOgs

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/08/021283.php  

 August 19, 2008

Obama Plays the Patriotism Card

Samuel Johnson wrote that patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. Those were the good old days; now, the last refuge of a scoundrel is pretending that his patriotism has been impugned.

In his speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars today, Barack Obama complained that John McCain has questioned his patriotism, and contrasted his own high-minded behavior with McCain's. Here is how the Associated Press put it:

Democrat Barack Obama challenged his Republican opponent John McCain on Tuesday to stop questioning his "character and patriotism."

Obama was actually quite fulsome on the subject. This is the text of the relevant portion of what he said to the VFW:

If we think that we can use the same partisan playbook where we just challenge our opponent's patriotism to win an election, then the American people will lose. The times are too serious for this kind of politics. The calamity left behind by the last eight years is too great.

Obama seems to think that challenging an opponent's patriotism is routine in Presidential politics. Actually, I can't recall a single instance when it's happened.

[O]ne of the things that we have to change in this country is the idea that people can't disagree without challenging each other's character and patriotism.

But who has "the idea that people can't disagree without challenging each other's character and patriotism?" I've never heard that idea expressed by anyone on either side of the political aisle. Certainly not by John McCain.

I have never suggested that Senator McCain picks his positions on national security based on politics or personal ambition. I have not suggested it because I believe that he genuinely wants to serve America's national interest. Now, it's time for him to acknowledge that I want to do the same.

Let me be clear: I will let no one question my love of this country. I love America, so do you, and so does John McCain.

When he says "no one," I suppose he means to except Jeremiah Wright. But has McCain ever questioned Obama's love of country? No.

So let's have a serious debate, and let's debate our disagreements on the merits of policy -- not personal attacks.

While Obama spoke with his usual vagueness, he seemed to be objecting to McCain's speech to the same group on the previous day. So let's see what McCain said about Obama, and whether he attacked Obama's patriotism. Here is everything that McCain had to say about Obama:

The lasting advantage of a peaceful and democratic ally in the heart of the Middle East could still be squandered by hasty withdrawal and arbitrary timelines. And this is one of many problems in the shifting positions of my opponent, Senator Obama.

With less than three months to go before the election, a lot of people are still trying to square Senator Obama's varying positions on the surge in Iraq. First, he opposed the surge and confidently predicted that it would fail. Then he tried to prevent funding for the troops who carried out the surge. Not content to merely predict failure in Iraq, my opponent tried to legislate failure.

All true enough. Obama does indeed have a sorry, contradictory record on Iraq, and he was indisputably wrong about the surge, predicting that it would increase violence. And he voted to cut off funding for the troops, which would have ensured defeat.

This was back when supporting America's efforts in Iraq entailed serious political risk. It was a clarifying moment. It was a moment when political self- interest and the national interest parted ways. For my part, with so much in the balance, it was an easy call. As I said at the time, I would rather lose an election than lose a war.

This might be what Obama is complaining about, but again, McCain is clearly right: at the time he advocated the surge, it was politically unpopular to do so. But this was a comment on McCain's motivation, not Obama's. McCain never said or implied that Obama really believed the surge would work, but took the opposite position out of political calculation.

Senator Obama still cannot quite bring himself to admit his own failure in judgment. Nor has he been willing to heed the guidance of General Petraeus, or to listen to our troops on the ground when they say -- as they have said to me on my trips to Iraq: "Let us win, just let us win." Instead, Senator Obama commits the greater error of insisting that even in hindsight, he would oppose the surge. Even in retrospect, he would choose the path of retreat and failure for America over the path of success and victory.

Once again, it's a game of "find the hidden attack on Obama's patriotism." McCain rightly points out that Obama is still wrong about the surge, in the face of all the evidence, and that if his counsel had been followed, we would have lost in Iraq. All true, and certainly not flattering to Obama. But what's patriotism got to do with it?

Behind all of these claims and positions by Senator Obama lies the ambition to be president. What's less apparent is the judgment to be commander in chief.

So Obama is more notable for ambition than for judgment--a fair evaluation in my opinion, but in any event hardly an attack on his patriotism. This is the last time McCain mentioned his opponent:

I suppose from my opponent's vantage point, veterans' concerns are just one more issue to be spun or worked to advantage. This would explain why he has also taken liberties with my position on the GI Bill.

So McCain thinks Obama is a spinner; it's fair to infer that he considers Obama a slippery character. But an unpatriotic slippery character? Obama protests too much.

For what it's worth, McCain never spoke the word "patriotism" in his VFW speech, or, for that matter, the word "character." Note, too, how Obama seeks to equate attacks on any aspect of a candidate's character with attacks on his patriotism. This is silly: any election, especially a Presidential election, rightly involves an assessment of each candidate's character. Most people think McCain's character is superior to Obama's, or, at a minimum, more thoroughly tested. Obama therefore tries to take the absurd position that character should be off the table.

In his VFW speech, Obama explicitly claimed that he, unlike McCain, has taken the high road in the campaign. But how true is that claim? Yesterday, while McCain delivered the VFW speech to which Obama so strenuously objected, what was Obama saying about his opponent?

Democrat Barack Obama berated his White House rival John McCain Monday as an out-of-touch economic illiterate, hardening his attacks in the pre-convention runup to his pick of a running mate. ...

Obama noted McCain's proud boast that he always put the country rather than politics first, a line that the Republican has used to lambast his opponent over the war in Iraq.
"But I have to say it's not an example of putting country first when you say (President) George Bush's economic policies have shown 'great progress'," he said....

"Mr McCain, let me explain to you, the economic disaster is happening right now. Maybe you haven't noticed," Obama said. ..."This guy obviously does not pump his own gas, he obviously does not do his own shopping, he obviously does not pay his own bills," he said.

Obama comes across as a whiner who is happy to dish out personal attacks, but thinks he should be entitled to some kind of immunity. I suspect that he played the patriotism card because he knows how vulnerable he is both on foreign policy and on character, and is hoping to delegitimize, or at least fend off, any criticisms in those areas as attacks on his patriotism. It isn't going to work.

To comment on this post, go here.