Democrats versus Republicans

[phallo153]

Jeez. Get over it already... it's such a non-issue.

"“Now in the final days of this campaign, John Kerry is running around talking tough. He’s trying every which way to cover up his record of weakness on national defense. But he can’t do it. It won’t work. As we like to say in Wyoming, you can put all the lipstick you want on a pig, but at the end of the day, it’ll still be a pig!”

Dick Cheney, 2004

YouTube - Dick Cheney: "You Can Put Lipstick on a Pig"

"I think they put some lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig"

John McCain, 2007 re: Hillary Clinton's health-care plan

[SailKing1]

Nope, It's just another Obama gaff like the muslim thing.

He was talking about his wife.

[Joel73]

Originally Posted by phallo153

Jeez. Get over it already... it's such a non-issue.

Dick Cheney, 2004

YouTube - Dick Cheney: "You Can Put Lipstick on a Pig"

John McCain, 2007 re: Hillary Clinton's health-care plan

They are not interested in talking about the real issues.

[poopdeckpappy]

Originally Posted by Joel73

They are not interested in talking about the real issues.

Real issues like Obama being maxist left ?? or that he shows such poor judgement that his lack of experience is a non issue

[PBzeer]

I too thought it was a mere slip of the tongue by Obama, though he did manage to turn it into an attack on the McCain campaign.

As far as going into deeper detail on the issues, what's the point? Each candidate has their core support, and nothing either says at this point is going to cause any change in those who have already made up their minds. Though given Obama ever evolving positions, questions of consistency of belief do arise.

More than that though, anyone who pays enough attention to actually understand the candidates positions, knows they will retain little similarity to what happens after Nov 4. What will remain constant though, is the direction they take in resolving the issues. For myself, I'm more interested in their philosophy than specifics.

As an example, in Obama's evolving tax policy, a bad economy is no longer the time to add taxes on the rich (which coincidentally is how he proposes to pay for all the new spending he wants). Now, someone with a modicum of common sense might ask, if it isn't good to raise taxes in a bad economy, why would it be okay to do it in a good economy? What that says to me is, is that raising taxes has a negative effect on the economy. Draw your own conclusions.

[PBzeer]

After thinking about it this morning, I realized that McCain is probably quite pleased with Obama's stooping to name calling. Hardly the kind of behavior one would expect out of a man trying to prove himself to be Presidential. Not to mention the sense of desperation it implies.

Rightly or wrongly, elections are mostly a matter of impressions. And when a Presidential candidate is reduced to using what amounts to a schoolyard taunt, it doesn't leave a good impression. And for many people, it's a measure of what kind of a man Obama is.

If you want a good indication of where either man would take the country, simply look at the tone of their campaigns. And their prescriptions for change. Because that is the better indicator of what is to come, than any empty campaign promise.

If you believe more government interference and control of your life is what we need, then by all means, vote for Obama. If you don't, vote for McCain. Because when you cut through all the rhetoric, that's the choice you're making.

[PBzeer]

Something well worth reading. It has nothing to do with politics, per se. Nothing to do with the candidates, or their positions. Nothing to do with who best will lead. It only has to do with what is ahead, and what many have forgotten, or never even really knew.

Paul Greenberg :: Townhall.com :: No Exit

[wind_magic]

Originally Posted by PBzeer

After thinking about it this morning, I realized that McCain is probably quite pleased with Obama's stooping to name calling.

This is true, and I was thinking the same thing yesterday when I got the chance to see Obama talking on television. At the same time I'm sure it was a strategy his staff suggested because what he was doing the day before wasn't working either. You can't just sit there and take shots and always be "above the fight" because instead of looking Presidential the candidate ends up looking weak. That first day after the Republican convention that's what Obama was trying to do, I remember him saying that he wasn't going to get into all of it because he thought we should stay focused on the issues. It took him about 24 hours and 5 polls to alter his position on that.

[Sailormon6]

Originally Posted by SailorMitch

once again, have you read any of these articles???

BUsh announced the surge JAn. 10, 07 against the advice of most of his military brass, including the 2 main guys on the ground at the time (casey and Abizaid).

As it turns out, virtually everyone, Democrat and Republican alike, agrees that President Bush's decision to employ the surge was correct, and "...the advice of most of his military brass, including the 2 main guys on the ground at the time (casey and Abizaid)" was wrong. The surge worked.

The next morning, he went to

Fort Benning, Ga., to address military personnel and their families. His decision had been opposed by Casey and Abizaid, his military commanders in Iraq. Pace and the Joint Chiefs, his top military advisers, had suggested a smaller increase, if any at all. Schoomaker, the Army chief, had made it clear that the five brigades didn't really exist under the Army's current policy of 12-month rotations. But on this morning, the president delivered his own version of history.
"The commanders on the ground in Iraq, people who I listen to -- by the way, that's what you want your commander-in-chief to do. You don't want decisions being made based upon politics or focus groups or political polls. You want your military decisions being made by military experts. They analyzed the plan, and they said to me and to the Iraqi government: 'This won't work unless we help them. There needs to be a bigger presence.' (EMphasis added.)

Which "Commanders on the ground" do you think he was referring to? Do you think he was referring to Casey and Abizaid? They were the ones who opposed it. He obviously wasn't referring to them. Since he wasn't getting the bold and creative advice that he expected from them, he undoubtedly sought out ideas elsewhere. Perhaps he sought ideas from some of the military experts of our allies, such as Israel, or others. Or, perhaps he talked with some of the Generals who were in-theatre, and who had hands-on experience with the problems. Those are undoubtedly the "Commanders on the ground in Iraq" to whom he was referring.

It isn't unprecedented for a President to look to junior officers to cut through the over-inflated egos, petty jealousies, nest-feathering and face-saving timidity of top-ranking Generals. That's why President Roosevelt elevated Dwight Eisenhower to Supreme Commander of all Allied Forces. He needed someone who hadn't yet become prone to such foolishness, and who could get on with the business of winning the war.

President Bush apparently found one or more "Commanders on the ground in Iraq" who gave him the bold, creative advice that he was seeking, and he had the political courage to act on their advice.

You haven't shown where the President's statement was a lie.

SO YOU TELL ME WHAT BUSH DID....

He exercised leadership.

[SteveInMD]

Bush certainly isn't a waffler on decisions. He keeps right on doing the same thing despite any new developments or information made available.