Colin Powell is no Republican

[Antipas]

Originally Posted by Ferd

I know where you are coming from Antipas. and I dont agree. Frist of all Obama HAD to pick someone who would be seen as a steady hand just like George Bush did (back then we called that gravitas).

McCain didnt have that problem. Unlike Obama McCain had all the gravitas he needed......until the spinmiesters in the media got ahold of the decision.

All the sudden McCain needs more gavitas because he is old and might die.

McCain did what he needed to do and that was pick someone who appealed to the base and could bring energy to the campaign. He did that.

But to think that the libs were going to let him do what he needed to do without taking their shots is silly.

this line of Republicans picking weak VPs would be stupid if it wasnt so old. It is at least as old as Richard Nixon. and maybe older than that.

There hasnt been a republican VP candidate that wasnt either too old, too inexperienced, or too mean in living memory.

The proof is in the reality that I can name every President going back to Woodrow Wilson but with the exception of the ones who became president, or who got kicked out of office, I cant name a VP beyond Al Gore.

VPs dont matter. They never really have except this time because John McCains VP energized his base. Therefore the air needed to be let out of the balloon.

The hypocracy of Collin Powell saying that Palin isnt qualified is a parrotting of the same hypocracy of so many others who will vote for a PRESIDENT who is no more qualified than the woman they denigrate.

It's about wise choices. Obama made a wise choice. McCain's choice can only serve him politically. And considering his age...it makes the pick for VP VERY important.

[Ferd]

Originally Posted by Antipas

Ferd...McCain didn't have to pick an Obamalike Barbie as a running mate. McCain could have picked someone just as seasoned as himself and delivered a one-two punch for a knock out.

and you are saying that anything McCain would have done would have been seen as a good thing?

Now you have moved into the relm of fiction. ANYTHING McCain would have done with the VP pick would have been spun as too much something.

the hypocracy here is as thick as texas gumbo mud.

[Antipas]

Originally Posted by Ferd

you need to review speaches made in congress.

Dems and Obama didnt say we needed to win in Iraq. they all agreed that we needed to pull out as we had already been defeated.

The Democrats felt that we'd done all we can do and that it was time to start a time table for withdraw.

[Ferd]

Originally Posted by Antipas

It's about wise choices. Obama made a wise choice. McCain's choice can only serve him politically. And considering his age...it makes the pick for VP VERY important.

No it is about liberal spin. and if you consider a man guilty of plagerism and known in Washington more for sticking his own foot in his mouth than for any piece of legislation that bares his name "wise" then youve been watching too much MSNBC and there simply isnt any hope for you.


go forth and vote Obama my friend. I firmly believe you will get what you want.

My prayer is that I am wrong about what that means.

[Ferd]

Originally Posted by Antipas

The Democrats felt that we'd done all we can do and that it was time to start a time table for withdraw.

Not what they said in congress. "we have lost"
"the surge has failed"
"all we are doing is killing women and children"

and I would further argue that McCain did NOT say that we have done all we can do and that it was time to start a time table for withdrawal.


thanks for pointing that out.

[chaotic_resolve]

To preface, I'm not voting for Obama - but I'm sick of this right-wing spin put against him, whether out of simple ignorance or pure seething hatred of the man.

Originally Posted by rgcraig

Ferd,

You don't think he was honest in his reasons - being McCain's choice of VP and concerned about the two seats available on the Supreme Court?

I just wish when he said that about Palin not having enough experience to be President that the next question asked of him would have been and you believe that Obama has more executive experience.

This notion that Palin is more experienced than Obama because of "executive" experience is just pure Republican spin. Doesn't matter what kind of state-level executive experience Palin has, it doesn't compare to any amount, short or long-term, of federal Senate experience which Obama has.

Palin's choice as VP was a political gamble of desperation by a McCain campaign that needed, 1) a way to stabilize support from the Republican base, which McCain didn't have; and 2) either a minority or gender to counter Obama's minority status...ie McCain either needed a minority or a woman on the ticket to offset Obama's appeal as a minority candidate.

Plus, it helps with Palin being a woman, because McCain can use her as the attack dog to make all these accusations against Obama ... but then if defended against or attacked back, the McCain campaign can (and has already) screamed and whined of sexism. Which, by the way, was the same thing they (including Palin) criticized Hillary for doing.

Originally Posted by DividedThigh

colin powell is a backstabber, plain and simple, he will be ashamed soon of his open traitor like activity, he is truly no conservative, and he isnt dumb enough not to know that obama is a socialist, rrgggg, dt

Before you throw around the word, "traitor," you may want to look up its definition. And before you associate that word with Colin Powell, you'd best look at the man's record of service to this country. Colin Powell is a great man and military leader who doesn't deserve the slanderous label of "traitor."

I'd request you retract the statement and simply agree that Colin Powell has never been a true Conservative Republican. It should be no surprise that he nominated Obama, being that he's been pro-choice, pro-affirmative action and more of a social liberal than conservative.

Attack the man's politics, but leave the attacks on his character out of it.

Originally Posted by Ferd

Oh and by the way McCain has a pretty solid cross over supporter in Joe Leiberman. It just seems that nobody really cares at all.

LOL!

Ah yes, Lieberman. I love how the partisan walls fall like Jericho whenever Lieberman's name is mentioned. Let's forget that had Lieberman endorsed Obama, conservatives would have written it off as just a liberal endorsing another liberal. Lieberman is, with exception of the Iraq War, one of the biggest social and fiscal liberals in the Senate.

Lieberman's endorsement of McCain is simple...he's been stung by a Democratic Party who ran a candidate against him and who has plans to terminate his committee's seat - so there's no way he was endorsing the Democratic candidate no matter who it may have been; and it simply shows that McCain and Lieberman are friends who have been in the Senate a long time and who agree pretty much on one issue alone - and that's the war in Iraq.

My reaction to Lieberman's endorsement of McCain is on par with my reaction to Powell's endorsement of Obama. It's not a bit surprising, considering the individual circumstances.

[scotty]

Originally Posted by Antipas

LOL

So you don't believe that McCain chose Palin and Obama chose Biden?

sure I do.

Here is what I don't believe:

Originally Posted by Antipas

McCain was very much a maverick who bucked the party line. But since 2000 McCain has become one of Bush's pandering lap dogs, and right now the same special interests that support Bush are teaching McCain how to fetch and roll over. People change. McCain realized in 2000 that he couldn't be himself and win the Republican nomination because Conservative Republicans have never been thrilled with him. For the past 8 years McCain has re-imaged himself for political expediency. It's sad really. He looks so desperate to be President.

These are "same ole, same ole, Democratic talking points" a bloggers ramblings. Fact is (oops, sorry, there is that "F"word you don't like) McCain has never been in the pocket of Bush, he has in fact, been against most tactics and policies that Bush has tried to pass, starting with how he conducted the war.

Oh, and how wise is Obama to pick a VP candidate that the people have voted out of Presidential candidate contention the last three times. That tells me he will be a president who will disregard the will of the people. Hmmm guess that means he is alot like Bush, huh ?

And of course there is all of this in each of your post, twice in some.

Reply #23 "lol"
Reply #32 "LOL" "LOL"
Reply #34 "LOL"
Reply #35 "LOL" "ROFL"


Which is a sure sign your either unsure of yourself or awefully arrogant. But that is the sign of a true liberal.

[2020Vision]

What Conservative likes Lieberman. We may admire his position on the war, but not on Conservative politics. He is included in the race to show how McCain knows how to "reach across the aisle". Makes me nauseous.

CP cannot be a Conservative, or ever a Conservative. No matter how much better Obama speaks than McCain, is message is far leftist. I don't buy the "I've voted Republican in every election in my life, but now I'm voting for Obama." They don't get it. Or... they drank the Kool-Aid.

[chaotic_resolve]

Originally Posted by Ferd

Not what they said in congress. "we have lost"
"the surge has failed"
"all we are doing is killing women and children"

and I would further argue that McCain did NOT say that we have done all we can do and that it was time to start a time table for withdrawal.

thanks for pointing that out.

Mind giving some sources to the first quote you just made? I do recall someone, I believe Senator Reid, saying the surge has failed...however, the others (especially the first) I haven't read.

Also, if the last quote is in reference to Obama's statement about bombing in Iraq ... then you had better give the same condemnation to McCain for his near-exact statement.

Here's Obama's much-ado statement (full quote in context instead of the 4-second soundbyte McCain's ad plays):

"We've got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there."

Now here's McCain from a 2000 Presidential Campaign debate:

"In the most obscene chapter in recent American history is the conduct of the Kosovo conflict when the president of the United States refused to prepare for ground operations, refused to have air power used effectively because he wanted them flying -- he had them flying at 15,000 feet where they killed innocent civilians because they were dropping bombs from such -- in high altitude."

McCain's ad highliting only Obama saying "air-raiding villages and killing civilians" in mid-sentence is ironically entitled, "Dishonorable." Funny, no mention of McCain's own statement which is only dissimilar to Obama's in terms of location and party in office.

[rgcraig]

Originally Posted by chaotic_resolve

This notion that Palin is more experienced than Obama because of "executive" experience is just pure Republican spin. Doesn't matter what kind of state-level executive experience Palin has, it doesn't compare to any amount, short or long-term, of federal Senate experience which Obama has.

I find this pretty amazing.