Blog Baby Blog

Oct 31, 2008 06:31

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20081030/pl_politico/15099#full

This argument if nothing else, is possibly the reason to vote Obama.



If the McCain camp really believes this, and I have to think McCain does since this is just echoing the comments I have heard from McCain, then McCain is an idiot.

Attack ad Senator does not equal debate ad.

Attacking someone Obama had dinner with or once upon a time sat on a committee with does not equal criticism of qualifications.

You can babble all daylong about dinner conversation at a public event where a couple of Professors were seated with Obama, but that just does not make them relevant. No one cares about a couple of radical professors.
At least Obama is educated enough to have philosophical debates with radicals, he finished at the top of his class. Where did you finish, oh year in the bottom five.

Your idiotic voting record is open season.

No one objected or cried foul when you pointed out Obama often votes present. He answered you, because it is a difference in voting styles. Obama does not object or support an issue which he does not feel is relevant to his state or his principles or perhaps on something which he does not have a strong feeling on one way or the other.
You on the other hand Senator McCain feel it is necessary to vote on everything that comes up whether you have any knowledge of the topic or not and whether or not it effects your constituents or not. Neither style is correct or wrong, they are just different.

For instance apparently when you are not educated on something like the economy you vote with the President. He relies on his economic advisors. (You know them, Big Oil, Big Pharma, and their rather large friend Greatbig War Machine.) Which is why you voted with the President 90% of the time, those were your words Senator McCain.

Which I don’t could be why that card stays on the table. Perhaps because you stated you would veto any bill that came through with earmarks. Not all earmarks are bad things Senator. You know like those earmarks on that monster bailout bill, the one you wanted to go through with only one earmark…deregulation.
Wait wasn’t that what got you in trouble with the Keating Five, you wanted to deregulate the S&L, but those mean old Democrats got you into that one right? That was a remarkable bit of slipperiness, you get away with a slap on the hand when it was your deregulations bill that let Lincoln Savings and Loan almost get away with criminal behavior. And hey just look the other way when you and your wife didn’t just take campaign donations, you took trips with him and she made land deals and benefited financially.
But no lets not look closer at Keating situation, because that was just “bad judgment”, you were new and did not know better.

And Sarah Palin goes directly to your credibility and ability to make decisions. You talk about your campaign not going negative, but Palin giving spaces for ugly chants, and making implied little snide hints at Obama’s race or religion just does not play when you try and deny that you are not using scare tactics.

Obama is questioning your record, because it is relevant. His campaign is questioning Palin’s record and behavior because it is relevant.

But no one has brought up her association with a Secessionist political organization, perhaps they should, but then that would be attacking an association. I mean maybe they mean well, I am sure they do some sort of humanitarian things right?
Just because Alaska is the only state in the union which subsists on oil royalties and when Sarah means she gave big cuts to the taxpayers of Alaska, she mean Big Oil, because Big Oil has traditionally had to pay dearly to Alaska residents to drill baby drill. So when she says she gave tax cuts, keep in mind she means to her constituents…Big Oil.

Why should we think a McCain/Palin ticket would be four more years of the same as Bush/Cheney.

Lets see a President who has stated economy is really not his strong suit, so he will have to rely on his VP.
And a VP pick who primary agenda of her economic policy is drill baby drill.
Oh my head déjà vu, where have I heard that problem before.

Previous post Next post
Up