Thread: McDuck's Post about 2008 Election

Originally Posted by Greg

The Barack backlash
Posted: October 17, 2008

As Americans render what Catholics call temporal judgment on George Bush, are they aware of the radical course correction they are about to make?

This center-right country is about to vastly strengthen a liberal Congress whose approval rating is 10 percent and implant in Washington a regime further to the left than any in U.S. history. Consider.

As of today, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the San Francisco Democrat, anticipates gains of 15-30 seats. Sen. Harry Reid, whose partisanship grates even on many in his own party, may see his caucus expand to a filibuster-proof majority where he can ignore Republican dissent.

Headed for the White House is the most left-wing member of the Senate, according to the National Journal. To the vice president's mansion is headed Joe Biden, third-most liberal as ranked by the National Journal, ahead of No. 4, Vermont Socialist Bernie Sanders.

What will this mean to America? An administration that is either at war with its base or at war with the nation.

America may desperately desire to close the book on the Bush presidency. Yet there is, as of now, no hard evidence it has embraced Obama, his ideology, or agenda. Indeed, his campaign testifies, by its policy shifts, that it is fully aware the nation is still resisting the idea of an Obama presidency.

In the later primaries, even as a panicked media were demanding that Hillary drop out of the race, she consistently routed Obama in Ohio and Pennsylvania and crushed him in West Virginia and Kentucky.

By April and May, the Democratic Party was manifesting all the symptoms of buyer's remorse over how it had voted in January and February.

Obama's convention put him eight points up. But, as soon as America heard Sarah Palin in St. Paul, the Republicans shot up 10 points and seemed headed for victory.

What brought about the Obama-Biden resurgence was nothing Obama and Biden did, but the mid-September crash of Fannie, Freddie, Lehman Brothers, AIG, the stock market, where $4 trillion was wiped out, the $700 billion bailout of Wall Street that enraged Middle America – and John McCain's classically inept handling of the crisis.

In short, Obama has still not closed the sale. Every time America takes a second look at him, it has second thoughts, and backs away.

Even after the media have mocked and pilloried Palin and ceded Obama and Biden victory in all four debates, the nation, according to Gallup, is slowly moving back toward the Republican ticket.

Moreover, Obama knows Middle America harbors deep suspicions of him. Thus, he has jettisoned the rhetoric about the "fierce urgency of now," and "We are the people we've been waiting for," even as he has jettisoned position after position to make himself acceptable.

His "flip-flops" testify most convincingly to the fact that Obama knows that where he comes from is far outside the American mainstream. For what are flip-flops other than concessions that a position is untenable and must be abandoned?

Flip-flopping reveals the prime meridian of presidential politics. If an analyst will collate all the positions to which all the candidates move, he will find himself close to the true center of national politics.

Thus, though he is the nominee of a party that is in thrall to the environmental movement, Obama has signaled conditional support for offshore drilling and pumping out of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

While holding to his pledge for a pullout of combat brigades from Iraq in 16 months, he has talked of "refining" his position and of a residual U.S. force to train the Iraqi army and deal with al-Qaida.

On Afghanistan, he has called for 10,000 more troops and U.S. strikes in Pakistan to kill bin Laden, even without prior notice or the permission of the Pakistani government.

Since securing the nomination, Obama has adopted the Scalia position on the death penalty for child rape and the right to keep a handgun in the home. He voted to give the telecoms immunity from prosecution for colluding in Bush wiretaps. This onetime sympathizer of the Palestinians now does a passable imitation of Ariel Sharon.

No Democrat has ever come out of the far left of his party to win the presidency. McGovern, the furthest left, stayed true to his convictions and lost 49 states.

Obama has chosen another course. Though he comes out of the McGovern-Jesse Jackson left, he has shed past positions like support for partial-birth abortion as fast as he has shed past associations, from William Ayers to ACORN, from the Rev. Jeremiah Wright to his fellow parishioners at Trinity United.

One question remains: Will a President Obama, with his party in absolute control of both Houses, revert to the politics and policies of the left that brought him the nomination, or resist his ex-comrades' demands that he seize the hour and impose the agenda ACORN, Ayers, Jesse and Wright have long dreamed of?

Whichever way he decides, he will be at war with them, or at war with us. If Barack wins, a backlash is coming.

I've talked to my father at lengths about this election, he's 84 and a yellow dog Dem and he even fears for this country. This is an election guide by hate, hatred of Bush, hatred of republican and now hatred of McCain/Palin, especially Palin. When a vote is made thru the vision of hatred, it will be one that we'll eventually regret, because hatred blinds people to the truth. I'm voting for what I think is best for America. Do I want us to continue our slide towards socialism or stay as a democratic republic. Am I happy with McCain, heck no, but I vote on values and principles and unfortunately, compromised is required.

But this is still America, so I should be able to vocie my opinion, without being called names. Only time will tell what we have brought on ourselves, but I believe the seeds were sown in 1976, when Carter was elected over Ford, because of the hatred for Ford pardoning Nixon. I even voted for Carter, not from hatred, but becasue I was thought Carter was the best man for the job. Well we all have things we're ashamed of.

I just see hatred and color, deciding this election and not what would be best for the majority of America, we'll always have our poor, every country does, even those countries that some call a workers paradise.

Whatever happens, I'll survive, because if what I think happens this country will be turned on its head, and not for the good.

Well it's not 4:30 yet, but it is Saturday and this is enough heavy thinking for a weekend.

CB

Originally Posted by CountryBoy

I'm voting for what I think is best for America. Do I want us to continue our slide towards socialism or stay as a democratic republic.

Its interesting CB, that I am using the same exact measuring stick to decide my vote. It just takes me to the other side. I just really can't dissociate McCain from Bush at all. The man has >90% voting record with Bush, why would you think he would do anything different in office than Bush did?

With a Democrat controlled house and Senate, I see no problems with McCain siding against them and vetoing everything they do. We these morons (on both sides of the aisle), no action by our government is the best course of action. The problem with McCain though is that he won't oppose them enough, but at lease he will oppose them more than Obama.

Originally Posted by ChemEng

Its interesting CB, that I am using the same exact measuring stick to decide my vote. It just takes me to the other side. I just really can't dissociate McCain from Bush at all. The man has >90% voting record with Bush, why would you think he would do anything different in office than Bush did?

+1

I too, am an intelligent, American Citizen and use my intellect to cast my vote. My intellect tells me there were never Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, but the focus has now shifted to "We're there because of the Terrorists". This administration has shifted the blame and failed to see the original intent on responding to 9-11, IMO, due in part by GW's disguised intent to finish the Saddam Hussein issue his father encountered. Afghanistan was, and still is the real issue, but to say that aloud in some circles would portray me as UNamerican and UNpatriotic.....McCarthyism at it's worst....but played out by many over the last 5 years for enrichment of their motives and objectives, however skewed.

If Bush had been as "Friendly" with Monica, it certainly would've been a better choice than what he has displayed as what I consider one of the WORST presidents to ever "Grace (?)" the White House.

He should've never left Texas, but that's moot at this point.

McCain....well, that says it all. Even some of those in the most conservative side of his party have dire reservations of his 'strange choice' of Veeps.

McCain would be better than Bush, and neither is as good as OBama.
But, beware of the Bubba Vote.

Originally Posted by The HalfBreed

+1

I too, am an intelligent, American Citizen and use my intellect to cast my vote. My intellect tells me there were never Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, but the focus has now shifted to "We're there because of the Terrorists". This administration has shifted the blame and failed to see the original intent on responding to 9-11, IMO, due in part by GW's disguised intent to finish the Saddam Hussein issue his father encountered. Afghanistan was, and still is the real issue, but to say that aloud in some circles would portray me as UNamerican and UNpatriotic.....McCarthyism at it's worst....but played out by many over the last 5 years for enrichment of their motives and objectives, however skewed.

If Bush had been as "Friendly" with Monica, it certainly would've been a better choice than what he has displayed as what I consider one of the WORST presidents to ever "Grace (?)" the White House.

He should've never left Texas, but that's moot at this point.

McCain....well, that says it all. Even some of those in the most conservative side of his party have dire reservations of his 'strange choice' of Veeps.

McCain would be better than Bush, and neither is as good as OBama.
But, beware of the Bubba Vote.

That is pure junk. You must get all your info from Al Jazeera like fabijo.

Originally Posted by Greg

That is pure junk. You must get all your info from Al Jazeera like fabijo.

yup. That's where I get ALL my info.

I hope to Allah that Obama wins..this way we smart ones can sit back and say 'I told ya so" suckers, now you have to live with him for at least the next four years....HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHHa

lol

Originally Posted by Greg

That is pure junk. You must get all your info from Al Jazeera like fabijo.

Regardless of where I get my information, my education is born in the USA.
However, seeing that you like to quote a known NEOCON like Pat Buchanan makes my choices even more palatable and believable....

Pat's a moron.

Originally Posted by ChemEng

Its interesting CB, that I am using the same exact measuring stick to decide my vote. It just takes me to the other side. I just really can't dissociate McCain from Bush at all. The man has >90% voting record with Bush, why would you think he would do anything different in office than Bush did?

ChemEng, I just can’t dissociate obama from socialism and being very soft on terrorism. To start with, I’m voting for McCain, (holding nose), for my belief that obama will lead us further down the road of socialism, bigger government, what ever you want to call it and I also don’t trust his people judgment abilities, just look who he selected as advisors. His current track record of friends/advisors, reads like a who’s who against America and hatred, his preacher (thrown under the bus after 20 years), Ayers (unrepentant terrorist), Calypso Louis, Joe Resko, ACORN, just to name a few. They’ve even kept his wife out of the limelight for her “reported” whitey statements and angry comments on America and it's peopel. I just don’t trust him. Also his stance on the 2nd Amendment and Infantcide. That is just a few of the reasons that I’ll vote reluctantly for McCain.

I think McCain, will be against budget earmarks, Bush spent like a drunken sailor, and Mac will be more pro active in protecting this country, than obama. Without security, this country will have no economy. Is McCain perfect? Hell no and I wish we had 2 real choices for president and not a couple of C grade students.

This is more of a “What I believe in” vote for me, this time around, because neither one gives me any confidence that they can solve the problems of this country.

CB

Originally Posted by The HalfBreed

+1

I too, am an intelligent, American Citizen and use my intellect to cast my vote. My intellect tells me there were never Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq,

That's the only way I vote is my intelligence and beliefs.

20/20 hind sight and Monday morning QB'ing. This is just a smattering of our officials and their beliefs on WMD's and Saddam. I left out the documented comments of the same Pols, beseeching then Prez Clinton, to attack Saddam, but a simple google will bring it all up with the associated documentation.

Bottom Line: If the Bush administration was lying about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, then so too were many leading Democrats. Just a few examples so as not to make this so long. We were not so much lied to, as we had very bad intellengence and Saddam's shouldn't have bluffed us and told the UN where they could stick their decade long list of resolutions wher the sun doesn't shine.

Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.)
"According to the CIA's report, all U.S. intelligence experts agree that Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons. There is little question that Saddam Hussein wants to develop nuclear weapons." • Congressional Record, October 9, 2002

Senator Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.)
"In the four years since the inspectors, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." • Congressional Record, October 10, 2002

Senator Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.)
"[It] is Hussein's vigorous pursuit of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, and his present and potential future support for terrorist acts and organizations, that make him a terrible danger to the people to the United States." • Congressional Record, October 10, 2002

Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.)
"We must eliminate that [potential nuclear] threat now before it is too late. But that isn't just a future threat. Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose real threats to America today, tomorrow. ... [He] is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East. He could make these weapons available to many terrorist groups, third parties, which have contact with his government. Those groups, in turn, could bring those weapons into the United States and unleash a devastating attack against our citizens. I fear that greatly." • Congressional Record, October 10, 2002

Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.)
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.” • Remarks at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, October 27, 2002

President Bill Clinton
"In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now - a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers, or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed. If we fail to respond today, Saddam, and all those who would follow in his footsteps, will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council, and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program." • Remarks at the Pentagon , February 17, 1998

"[L]et's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal. And I think every one of you who has really worked on this for any length of time, believes that, too." • Remarks at the Pentagon, February 17, 1998

"Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them, not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq. The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again." • Remarks at the White House , December 16, 1998

Vice President Al Gore
"[I]f you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He's already demonstrated a willingness to use these weapons; he poison gassed his own people. He used poison gas and other weapons of mass destruction against his neighbors. This man has no compunctions about killing lots and lots of people." • Larry King Live, December 16, 1998

"Remember, Peter, this is a man who has used poison gas on his own people and on his neighbors repeatedly. He's trying to get ballistic missiles, nuclear weapons, chemical and biological weapons. He could be a mass murderer of the first order of magnitude. We are not going to allow that to happen." • ABC News’ "Special Report,” December 16, 1998

This is just a short list of such comments and beliefs, both sides believed Saddam had these weapons and would use them.

Just adding a little reality check to the subject.

CB