PDA

View Full Version : And they called Kerry a Flip Flopper?


Stlrs4Life
07-09-2008, 01:44 AM
Give me a break:


Some Of Senator McCain's Flip-flops

They've begun to keep a list of Senator McCain's flip-flops over at The Carpetbagger Report. It's a long list. Who said size doesn't matter?

For your perusal, just some of John McCain's flip-flops.

Abortion

McCain in 1999:

"I'd love to see a point where it is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary," McCain told the Chronicle in an article published Friday. "But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations."

And

On Sunday, on CNN's "Late Edition," McCain reiterated that he would not have an abortion "litmus" test for a running mate or Supreme Court nominees.

McCain now:

John McCain believes Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned, and as president he will nominate judges who understand that courts should not be in the business of legislating from the bench.

Flip-flop.

On the president's warrantless wiretapping

McCain in 2007:

1. Does the president have inherent powers under the Constitution to conduct surveillance for national security purposes without judicial warrants, regardless of federal statutes?

There are some areas where the statutes don’t apply, such as in the surveillance of overseas communications. Where they do apply, however, I think that presidents have the obligation to obey and enforce laws that are passed by Congress and signed into law by the president, no matter what the situation is.

Okay, so is that a no, in other words, federal statute trumps inherent power in that case, warrantless surveillance?

I don't think the president has the right to disobey any law.

McCain now:

A top adviser to Senator John McCain says Mr. McCain believes that President Bush’s program of wiretapping without warrants was lawful, a position that appears to bring him into closer alignment with the sweeping theories of executive authority pushed by the Bush administration legal team.

In a letter posted online by National Review this week, the adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, said Mr. McCain believed that the Constitution gave Mr. Bush the power to authorize the National Security Agency to monitor Americans’ international phone calls and e-mail without warrants, despite a 1978 federal statute that required court oversight of surveillance.

And if you missed it, here's some clarification:

David Golove, a New York University law professor who specializes in executive power issues, said that while the language used by Mr. McCain in his answers six months ago was imprecise, the recent statement by Mr. Holtz-Eakin “seems to contradict precisely what he said earlier.”

Flip-Flop.

On Detaining Terror Suspects at Guantanamo Bay

McCain in 2003:

They [al Qaeda detainees] may not have any rights under the Geneva Conventions as far as I'm concerned, but they have rights under various human rights declarations. And one of them is the right not to be detained indefinitely.

McCain now:

John McCain weighed in on the U.S. Supreme Court decision on the rights of Guantanamo Bay prisoners to challenge their detention in U.S. courts at a town hall meeting Friday, calling the 5-4 decision “one of the worst decisions in the history of this country.”

McCain said he that while he has been a vocal opponent of torture and advocated closing Guantanamo, he does not believe prisoners deserve the same rights as U.S. citizens.

Flip-Flop.

And that's just three. We haven't mentioned John McCain flip-flopping on torture or immigration or taking credit for the G.I. Bill he opposed.

Preacher
07-09-2008, 02:47 AM
I guess he should just vote present all the time so that he has no real position right?

cough obama cough.

:rolleyes:

Steelman16
07-09-2008, 06:49 AM
http://www.arkansas103.com/generator/files/flip%20flops.jpg

From left to right: John "Flip" McCain & Barrak "Flop" Obama

Obama even has a sweat stain. :chuckle:

GBMelBlount
07-09-2008, 07:28 AM
I'm sure President Clinton wishes that was the only type of "stain" he produced in the oval office.

HometownGal
07-09-2008, 07:41 AM
All politicians flip flop and tell you what they think you want to hear at the time.

Speaking of flip-flopping:

In no particular order...

Special interests In January, the Obama campaign described union contributions to the campaigns of Clinton and John Edwards as "special interest" money. Obama changed his tune as he began gathering his own union endorsements. He now refers respectfully to unions as the representatives of "working people" and says he is "thrilled" by their support.

(Source: Washington Post)


Public financing Obama replied "yes" in September 2007 when asked if he would agree to public financing of the presidential election if his GOP opponent did the same. Obama has now attached several conditions to such an agreement, including regulating spending by outside groups. His spokesman says the candidate never committed himself on the matter.

(Source: Washington Post)


The Cuba embargo In January 2004, Obama said it was time "to end the embargo with Cuba" because it had "utterly failed in the effort to overthrow Castro." Speaking to a Cuban American audience in Miami in August 2007, he said he would not "take off the embargo" as president because it is "an important inducement for change."

(Source: Washington Post)


Illegal immigration In a March 2004 questionnaire, Obama was asked if the government should "crack down on businesses that hire illegal immigrants." He replied "Oppose." In a Jan. 31, 2008, televised debate, he said that "we do have to crack down on those employers that are taking advantage of the situation."

(Source: Washington Post)


Decriminalization of Marijuana: While running for the U.S. Senate in January 2004, Obama told Illinois college students that he supported eliminating criminal penalties for marijuana use. In the Oct. 30, 2007, presidential debate, he joined other Democratic candidates in opposing the decriminalization of marijuana.

(Source: Washington Post)


Running for President or Vice President of the United States: On the January 22nd edition of “Meet the Press,” Tim Russert and Obama had the following exchange:Russert: “When we talked back in November of ‘04 after your election, I said, ‘There’s been enormous speculation about your political future. Will you serve your six-year term as United States senator from Illinois?’”Obama: “I will serve out my full six-year term. You know, Tim, if you get asked enough, sooner or later you get weary and you start looking for new ways of saying things. But my thinking has not changed.”Russert: “So you will not run for president or vice president in 2008?” Obama: “I will not.”

(Source: Audacity of Hyprocrisy)


Single-Payer Healthcare: On January 22nd, the Hillary Clinton Campaign releases a video that proves that Obama lied about his position on “single-payer healthcare.”The video compares statements Obama made during the January 21st Democratic debate with those he made to an AFL-CIO conference in June 2003 while campaigning for the Senate. Contradicting what Obama said at the debate, the old footage shows the senator saying, “I happen to be a proponent of single-payer universal healthcare coverage. That’s what I’d like to see.”At the debate, Obama stated: “I never said that we should try to go ahead and get single-payer (healthcare).”Single-payer healthcare is an euphemism for socialized medicine.

(Source: Audacity of Hypocrisy)


NAFTA: On February 29th, the Obama campaign told Canadian Television (CTV) that no message was passed to the Canadian government suggesting that Obama does not mean what he says about opting out of NAFTA if it is not renegotiated.However, the Obama camp did not respond to repeated questions from CTV on reports that a conversation on this matter was held between Obama’s senior economic adviser, Austan Goolsbee, and the Canadian Consulate General in Chicago.Earlier Thursday, the Obama campaign insisted that no conversations have taken place with any of its senior ranks and representatives of the Canadian government on the NAFTA issue. On Thursday night, CTV spoke with Goolsbee, but he refused to say whether he had such a conversation with the Canadian government office in Chicago. He also said he has been told to direct any questions to the campaign headquarters.CTV didn’t stop there. They announced that their sources, at the highest levels of the Canadian government,” reconfirmed the story to CTV and one of their primary sources provided a timeline of the discussion to CTV.

(Source: Audacity of Hyprocisy)

7/3/08 UPDATE: Video Daily Double on the NAFTA Flip-Flop courtesy of Red State.


Donations from Lobbyists and Special Interest PACS: Obama say he doesn’t take money from DC lobbyists and special interest PACS. This is the type of double-talk “politics of the past” rhetoric Obama rails against.While his claim is technically true, what he does do is take money from state lobbyists and other big money contributors who have substantial lobbyist machines in DC, like law firms and corporations.In April 2007, the LA Times quoted the Campaign Finance Institute’s Stephen Weissman as pointing out that the distinction Obama makes on lobbyist money is meaningless: “He gets an asterisk that says he is trying to be different. … But overall, the same wealthy interests are funding his campaign as are funding other candidates, whether or not they are lobbyists.”The Capital Eye reported that “[a]ccording to the Center for Responsive Politics, 14 of Obama’s top 20 contributors employed lobbyists this year, spending a total of $16.2 million to influence the federal government in the first six months of 2007.”

(Source: Audacity of Hyprocisy)


Rev. Jeremiah Wright: Barack Obama repudiated what he called “inflammatory and appalling remarks” made by his Chicago pastor.Obama said he had not been present during the sermons in question.Obama told MSNBC, “Had I heard them in church I would have expressed that concern directly to Rev. Wright.”Please note, he says that he would have expressed concern, not repudiate, the words. (Source: Audacity of Hypocrisy) Previously Obama had said "I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother — a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe."

(Source: The Hill's Pundits Blog)


Jerusalem: "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided," Obama declared Wednesday, to rousing applause from the 7,000-plus attendees at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee policy conference.

But a campaign adviser clarified Thursday that Obama believes "Jerusalem is a final status issue, which means it has to be negotiated between the two parties" as part of "an agreement that they both can live with."

(Source: Jerusalem Post)


Meeting with Foreign Leaders: Obama Now Claims That He Will Only Meet With Foreign Leaders At A Time Of His Choosing If It Will Advance U.S. Interests, But Previously Said He Would Meet With Rogue Leaders His First Year In Office Without Preconditions:

In His Remarks To The AIPAC Conference, Obama Claimed That He Would Only Meet With The "Appropriate Iranian Leaders At A Time And Place" Of His Choosing. Obama: "Contrary to the claims of some, I have no interest in sitting down with our adversaries just for the sake of talking. But as President of the United States, I would be willing to lead tough and principled diplomacy with the appropriate Iranian leaders at a time and place of my choosing - if, and only if - it can advance the interests of the United States." (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At The Annual AIPAC Policy Conference, Arlington, VA, 6/4/08)

But At A July 2007 Debate, Obama Said He Would Meet With Hostile Leaders During His First Year In Office. Question: "[W]ould you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?"...Obama: "I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them - which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration - is ridiculous." (CNN/YouTube Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Charleston, SC, 7/23/07)

At A September 2007 Press Conference, Obama Confirmed That He Would Meet Specifically With Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Question: "Senator, you've said before that you'd meet with President Ahmadinejad ..." Obama: "Uh huh." Question: "Would you still meet with him today?" Obama: "Yeah, nothing's changed with respect to my belief that strong countries and strong presidents talk to their enemies and talk to their adversaries. I find many of President Ahmadinejad's statements odious and I've said that repeatedly. And I think that we have to recognize that there are a lot of rogue nations in the world that don't have American interests at heart. But what I also believe is that, as John F. Kennedy said, we should never negotiate out of fear but we should never fear to negotiate." (Sen. Barack Obama, Press Conference, New York, NY, 9/24/07)

(Source: RNC via Fox Business)


---continued---

HometownGal
07-09-2008, 07:42 AM
Legislation Labeling Iran's Revolutionary Guard A Terrorist Organization: Obama Has Been Inconsistent In His Views On Labeling Iran's Revolutionary Guard A Terrorist Organization. "Obama's campaign suddenly discovered that their man -despite having spent the last nine months campaigning on his opposition to Kyl-Lieberman - 'has consistently urged that Iran's Revolutionary Guard be labeled what it is: a terrorist organization.' Well, not that consistently. Senator Obama has been scrupulously careful not to call explicitly for designation of the IRGC as a terrorist organization. Now, however, with the Democratic nomination almost in hand, Obama feels comfortable telling a pro-Israel audience what it wants to hear."(Danielle Pletka, "Obama's Pander Pivot," Weekly Standard, 6/4/08)

"[T]he Audience At AIPAC Might Ask Why Senator Obama Has Pivoted From Opposition To 'Lieberman-Kyl' To Support For The IRGC Designation His Audience Demands. Is This Really Change They Can Believe In?" (Danielle Pletka, "Obama's Pander Pivot," Weekly Standard, 6/4/08)

"Which Barack Obama Will Be The Democratic Standard-Bearer: The One Who Vowed To 'Eliminate' The Iranian Nuclear Threat Two Days Ago, Or The One Who Opposed Designating The Revolutionary Guards A Terrorist Organization?" (Editorial, "Obama And Iran," The Washington Times, 6/6/08)

(Source: RNC via Fox Business)


Palestinian Elections In 2006: Obama Says That He Opposed Palestinian Elections In 2006. Obama: "There is no room at the negotiating table for terrorist organizations. That is why I opposed holding elections in 2006 with Hamas on the ballot. The Israelis and the Palestinian Authority warned us at the time against holding these elections, but this administration pressed ahead. And the result is a Gaza controlled by Hamas, with rockets raining down on Israel." (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At The Annual AIPAC Policy Conference, Arlington, VA, 6/4/08)

But During His 2006 Trip To The Middle East, Obama Met With Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas And Said The Election Represented An "Opportunity...To Consolidate Behind A Single Government." "Illinois Senator Barack Obama's journey to the Middle East took him to the West Bank Thursday for a meeting with the man elected to replace Yasser Arafat. ... For a time Thursday in the West Bank there was only the clatter of cameras as the newly elected president of the Palestinian authority, Mahmoud Abbas, met with Illinois Senator Barack Obama. At a meeting with Palestinian students Thursday, Obama said the U.S. will never recognize winning Hamas candidates unless the group renounces its fundamental mission to eliminate Israel, and Obama told ABC7 he delivered that message to the Palestinian president. 'Part of the opportunity here with this upcoming election is to consolidate behind a single government with a single authority that can then negotiate as a reliable partner with Israel,' said Obama." (Chuck Goudie, "Obama Meets With Arafat's Successor," ABC 7 News, http://obama.senate.gov, 1/12/06)

The Palestinian News Agency WAFA Reported That Obama Was Supportive Of The Palestinian Elections Being Held At Their Scheduled Time. "President Mahmoud Abbas met Thursday with the U.S. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL), in the Presidential HQ in Ramallah...President briefed the U.S. Senator about the latest developments in the Palestinian territories including the preparations for the legislative elections.... Abbas and Obama discussed the means of underpinning the American-Palestinian economic relations...Obama asserted the US supports and eager that the Palestinian legislative elections on its proposed time (January 25)." ("President Meets U.S. Senator And Armenian Delegation," WAFA, http://english.wafa.ps, 1/12/06)

(Source: RNC via Fox Business)


Iraq War: “At a time when American casualties are down, at a time when the violence is down, particularly affecting the Iraqi population, is that the right time to try and set time tables for withdrawing all American troops? I mean you talked about…the end of 2009,” Kroft remarked.

“Yeah, absolutely. I think now is precisely the time. I think that it is very important for us to send a clear signal to the Iraqis that we are not gonna be here permanently. We’re not gonna set up permanent bases. That they are going to have to resolve their differences and get their country functioning,” Obama said.

“And you pull out according to that time table, regardless of the situation? Even if there’s serious sectarian violence?” Kroft asked.

“No, I always reserve as commander in chief, the right to assess the situation,” Obama replied.

(Source: 60 Minutes via Dirty Harry's Place)


The Threat of Iran: Obama's comments in Oregon yesterday:
I mean think about it. Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us....You know, Iran, they spend one-one hundredth of what we spend on the military. If Iran ever tried to pose a serious threat to us, they wouldn't stand a chance.And we should use that position of strength that we have to be bold enough to go ahead and listen. That doesn't mean we agree with them on everything. We might not compromise on any issues, but at least we should find out other areas of potential common interest, and we can reduce some of the tensions that has caused us so many problems around the world.
Today in Montana, Obama changed his tune:
Iran is a grave threat. It has an illicit nuclear program. It supports terrorism across the region and militias in Iraq. It threatens Israel's existence. It denies the Holocaust...

(Source: Weekly Standard)


North Korea: U.S. Democratic presidential frontrunner Senator Barack Obama has recently indicated he no longer opposes the removal of North Korea from a U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism. Obama in January 2005 came out against the removal of the Stalinist nation from the list until it gives an account of the kidnapping and death in the North of the Rev. Kim Dong-shik in 2000.

(Source: ROK Drop)


PATRIOT Act: "Giving law enforcement the tools they need to investigate suspicious activity is the right thing, and the Senate showed earlier this year that it can be done with the oversight of our judicial system so we do not jeopardize the rights of all Americans and the ideals America stands for. We should not let the PATRIOT Act expire at the end of this year, but instead extend the current law for three months so that we can come to an agreement on these critical issues in Congress."

(Source: Obama's Senate site)

On the Issues FactCheck: Promised to repeal Patriot Act, then voted for it.

(Source: On the Issues)


Coal: Obama, whose support for coal-to-liquid has been widely criticized by environmentalists, sent out a press release clarifying his position on liquid coal:

Senator Obama supports research into all technologies to help solve our climate change and energy dependence problems, including shifting our energy use to renewable fuels and investing in technology that could make coal a clean-burning source of energy…However, unless and until this technology is perfected, Senator Obama will not support the development of any coal-to-liquid fuels unless they emit at least 20% less life-cycle carbon than conventional fuels.

This “clarification” is an important step for the Obama campaign in trying to gain support from environmental organizations and voters. However, the LA Times notes that his position change on this issue is even more significant because it symbolizes “there’s a race to the top among the Democratic candidates for the strongest position on how to solve the climate crisis.”

(Source: Carbon Coalition)


PAYGO: Obama promised to "restore a law that was in place during the Clinton presidency—called Paygo—that prohibits money from leaving the treasury without some way of compensating for the lost revenue." but now Obama says he's not going to sacrifice his domestic priorities for deficit reduction. Universal health care, renewable energy, and all he rest won't be sacrificed on the altar of PAYGO.

(Source: Q and O)

HometownGal
07-09-2008, 07:43 AM
Meeting with Ahmadinejad:"Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama underscored his willingness to talk to leaders of countries like Iran that are considered U.S. adversaries but said that does not necessarily mean an audience with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad." (Caren Bohan, "Obama Says Won't Guarantee Ahmadinejad A Meeting," Reuters, 5/26/08)

"'There's no reason why we would necessarily meet with Ahmadinejad before we know he's actually in power. He's not the most powerful person in Iran,' Obama told reporters while campaigning in New Mexico." (Caren Bohan, "Obama Says Won't Guarantee Ahmadinejad A Meeting," Reuters, 5/26/08)

But in July 2007, Obama said he would meet with the leaders of hostile foreign nations, including Iran:
At a July 2007 debate, Obama announced he would personally meet with leaders Of Iran, North Korea, Syria and other hostile nations "without precondition."

Question: "[W]ould you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?"

Obama: "I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them - which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration - is ridiculous." (CNN/YouTube Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Charleston, SC, 7/23/07)

(Source: RNC via NewsMax)


Illegal Immigrants and Driver's Licenses: As a state senator in Illinois, Obama voted to require illegal immigrants to get a driver's license. The change? In the November 2007 CNN debate, he was asked what his stand was on that issue and he said, "I am not proposing that's what we do."

(Source: Nashua Telegraph)

http://massdiscussion.blogspot.com/2008/06/collection-of-obama-flip-flops.html

TroysBadDawg
07-09-2008, 08:02 AM
Accuse McCain of flip flopping? Who is now wearing an American flag pin? McCain always has, Obama said it was against his religion, so I guess he has also changed religions now?

Care to go on? Obama is a Socialist pure and simple. Global Poverty Act is his way of evening the playing field and taking more money out of our pockets. It was passed by a voice vote, so no one knows how anyone actually voted, Slick move Nancy Pelosi.

revefsreleets
07-09-2008, 09:00 AM
On the war: McCain has held fast. Now Obama is "refining his position". Since the war is going to be the second or third biggest issue this election (economy, fuel prices), it's probably more apropos to look at these guys flip-flops in order of importance.

Mosca
07-09-2008, 09:25 AM
A man SHOULD change his position as the situation changes, as information available changes, and as his/our interests change. I would much prefer someone who adjusts his thoughts to one who blindly forges ahead with flawed policy.

I've had just about enough of this hoisting Republicans on their own petard regarding the use of "flipflopping". Kerry's fault wasn't that he changed his mind on the issues; it was his ineffective and stuttering response to the charge. IMO, his response said much about what he would be like under pressure, and that was what doomed his candidacy. People saw through the "flipflopping" charge. What they paid attention to was the hummana-hummana-hummana that followed. THAT was what they didn't like.

GBMelBlount
07-09-2008, 09:39 AM
A man SHOULD change his position as the situation changes, as information available changes, and as his/our interests change. I would much prefer someone who adjusts his thoughts to one who blindly forges ahead with flawed policy.


Also, as their personal life experiences change. An event or series of events in one's life can change their view given no change in their knowledge of the topic.

Stlrs4Life
07-09-2008, 10:15 AM
A man SHOULD change his position as the situation changes, as information available changes, and as his/our interests change. I would much prefer someone who adjusts his thoughts to one who blindly forges ahead with flawed policy.

I've had just about enough of this hoisting Republicans on their own petard regarding the use of "flipflopping". Kerry's fault wasn't that he changed his mind on the issues; it was his ineffective and stuttering response to the charge. IMO, his response said much about what he would be like under pressure, and that was what doomed his candidacy. People saw through the "flipflopping" charge. What they paid attention to was the hummana-hummana-hummana that followed. THAT was what they didn't like.
Oh, Mosca I can agree with that. Just wanted to show the Hypocrsy in the Republicans, it shows in this thread. When 1 of theres is accused of it, it's OK, but god forbid when somebody else does.

GBMelBlount
07-09-2008, 10:18 AM
Oh, Mosca I can agree with that. Just wanted to show the Hypocrsy in the Republicans, it shows in this threade. When 1 of theres is accused of it, it's OK, but god forbid when somebody else does.


Can I still come to your tailgate parties? :thumbsup:

revefsreleets
07-09-2008, 10:32 AM
John McCain ate at Primanti's in the Strip last night. Ordered a steak & cheese. That's got to count for something:flap:

MACH1
07-09-2008, 10:38 AM
IMO...Obama makes Kerry look good. Here's what you do ask Obama if he would nominate a justice that is against gun control. Then watch the fish out of water flop around.

Mosca
07-09-2008, 10:39 AM
John McCain ate at Primanti's in the Strip last night. Ordered a steak & cheese. That's got to count for something:flap:

LOL, he must have thought he was in Philadelphia! He shoulda got the steak & EGG!

Stlrs4Life
07-09-2008, 10:41 AM
Can I still come to your tailgate parties? :thumbsup:


Of cousre. I'm not 1 of those Arrogant Republicans.

GBMelBlount
07-09-2008, 10:50 AM
Of cousre. I'm not 1 of those Arrogant Republicans.
:drink:

lamberts-lost-tooth
07-09-2008, 10:58 AM
Of cousre. I'm not 1 of those Arrogant Republicans.

Getting a little testy....you realize nobody on this forum is actually running for office...right?

CantStop85
07-09-2008, 11:19 AM
A presidential candidate flip-flopping? No...never...

HometownGal
07-09-2008, 12:55 PM
Oh, Mosca I can agree with that. Just wanted to show the Hypocrsy in the Republicans, it shows in this thread. When 1 of theres is accused of it, it's OK, but god forbid when somebody else does.

I'm not really seeing any hypocrisy in this thread, Dom. I think everyone realizes that ALL politicians flip-flop on any given issue, depending on which way the wind is blowing on any given day. I posted what I did to reflect that both candidates have done their share of flopping around. Look - I'm not thrilled with either candidate, but my top priority is this country remaining safe from terrorism, I have to go with Senator McCain as I believe he would be far more hard-assed on terrorists than Obama. He's more than proven that he's as tough as they come and won't back down. If this country is attacked again (which I believe is a strong possibility under Obama's watch if he is elected - sorry) we won't have to worry about gas prices, health care, government spending, etc. and that is why I have made the safety of this country my top priority when supporting a candidate in this election.

Dino 6 Rings
07-09-2008, 01:01 PM
I'm not as concerned if a Politician changes his mind during the coarse of his career, say 10 years ago he was against abortion and now is for a woman's right to chose, or 15 years ago he wanted a 3 strike rule and now sees how it has been unfairly applied in some cases, but I can not stand Politicians that flat out LIE during their campaign just to get votes from one side or the other, or the Middle and have absolutely ZERO intention of implementing a single thing they ran on while lying out of both sides of their mouth. That is what I look at first and foremost. Who's telling out right lies.

A Guy like Ralph Nader, I think he's nuts, but you know what, he's honest, he'll tell you the same thing today, he will tomorrow and did yesterday. He's an honest nutcase. Got to respect that.

revefsreleets
07-09-2008, 05:59 PM
On that note, I can't help but think of that crazed little nutbag Ross Perot. God bless his little tiny completely honest and open heart...

Dino 6 Rings
07-09-2008, 06:04 PM
Ross was a pretty honest guy, nutty as a fruitcake, but still honest.

I found Romney to be pretty honest. Don't know if I could have voted for him, I have a mental block on the Mormon thing (yes, a personal prejudice, I am guilty), but I liked him while he campaigned.

Preacher
07-09-2008, 06:28 PM
I'm not as concerned if a Politician changes his mind during the coarse of his career, say 10 years ago he was against abortion and now is for a woman's right to chose, or 15 years ago he wanted a 3 strike rule and now sees how it has been unfairly applied in some cases, but I can not stand Politicians that flat out LIE during their campaign just to get votes from one side or the other, or the Middle and have absolutely ZERO intention of implementing a single thing they ran on while lying out of both sides of their mouth. That is what I look at first and foremost. Who's telling out right lies. .

Exactly...

Which is why, forgive me GBmount.. I chose to not vote for Mitt Romney... it seemed all his positions changed AFTER he decided to run for president.