John McCain Sucks

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Are you seriously expecting me to take that as a more serious and non-biased source of information? come on now, Steve. Let's start pulling out sources that aren't a biased, partisan blog. I mean you are always asking the conservatives to look behyond Fox News, right?

The fact, is McCain has taken some positions that are deeply unpopular with his own party. That's why people like Gary and Charles don't like him! George Bush and the ####### are a little unfair, I think.

Have you been eating over at Gary's place? Seriously, it's not the source that matters if we're talking about facts. Set aside whatever opinion you find in either of those pieces and refute the facts...or humbly accept that McCain did in fact flip flop on his stance against torture.

[no name 1]

Do we really want a Junior Senator in the White House who has built his campaign on promises of change but never clearly defines it other than to say that America is heading in the wrong direction and he can unite us? Sounds like candidate Bush in 2000. Universal health care will never be a reality because as a nation we cant afford it. Nancy Pelosi was supposed to change the way congress does business too.

The election will be a process of choosing the least negative and with regard to McCain, he would be the biggest negative.

Not sure the HC supporters think that....

It would be if Obama gets the nomination.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/105691/McCain-v...ers-McCain.aspx

Chalk it up to sore losers.

That ego issue is spreading to his congregation I see.

Rather, JUST SAY NO TO KOOLAID!

I admire your tenacity but if this were a football game, it's the 4th quarter with only 2 minutes left on the clock and your team is down by a couple of touchdowns...and they just fumbled the ball on their own 20.

So when an HC supporter actually believes in their candidate (you know in the nomination race that is not over yet) - it's fair game to mock them? But not when the tables are turned. The hypocrisy is written all over the wall Steven.

[Dan J 277]

Do we really want a Junior Senator in the White House who has built his campaign on promises of change but never clearly defines it other than to say that America is heading in the wrong direction and he can unite us? Sounds like candidate Bush in 2000. Universal health care will never be a reality because as a nation we cant afford it. Nancy Pelosi was supposed to change the way congress does business too.

The election will be a process of choosing the least negative and with regard to McCain, he would be the biggest negative.

Not sure the HC supporters think that....

It would be if Obama gets the nomination.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/105691/McCain-v...ers-McCain.aspx

Sorry Dev. I know that you want HC but I just don't see it happening. And your link just shows how this fight is handing the WH to McCain. The last 2 elections were decided by very slim margins and with this many dems either crossing over to McCain or staying home it does not look good for the dems. Steven can't see that. His loss.

I think you didn't word it clearly. I meant that HC supporters would pick McC over Obama in November.

In the heat of the primary season, i would bet those numbers are inflated. The race has been divisive.

Then the other question is, how many of the supporters polled would really vote for McCain regaurdless of who they support on the Democratic side.

[no name 1]

I admire your tenacity but if this were a football game, it's the 4th quarter with only 2 minutes left on the clock and your team is down by a couple of touchdowns...and they just fumbled the ball on their own 20.

Steven, if your so sure I will offer my bet again. I will put $100 on McCain. You willing to bet on your "sure thing"?

[Dan J 277]

Do we really want a Junior Senator in the White House who has built his campaign on promises of change but never clearly defines it other than to say that America is heading in the wrong direction and he can unite us? Sounds like candidate Bush in 2000. Universal health care will never be a reality because as a nation we cant afford it. Nancy Pelosi was supposed to change the way congress does business too.

The election will be a process of choosing the least negative and with regard to McCain, he would be the biggest negative.

Not sure the HC supporters think that....

It would be if Obama gets the nomination.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/105691/McCain-v...ers-McCain.aspx

Sorry Dev. I know that you want HC but I just don't see it happening. And your link just shows how this fight is handing the WH to McCain. The last 2 elections were decided by very slim margins and with this many dems either crossing over to McCain or staying home it does not look good for the dems. Steven can't see that. His loss.

I think you didn't word it clearly. I meant that (many) HC supporters would pick McC over Obama in November.

He's not perfect, but I don't think a link to the Huffington Post (a completely non-biased source of course) really cancels out the stand he took at the Senate Hearings last year

How about Crooks and Liars?

Countdown: John McCain's Tortured Logic And Flip Flop On Torture

MADDOW: The White House admits, as of this month, to authorizing waterboarding. And they say that they authorized it because the way they looked at the law, they're allowed to do that. It's legal. Yeah right, but that's what the White House said. They said, 'The way we interpreted the law, we thought it was legal and we're happy that we did it, and it was very useful.' So Congress has therefore passed something that says, 'actually, clearly, plainly, obviously this is illegal, if you didn't think it was illegal before, let us make it more obvious for you.' And that's what John McCain voted against. So, in context, and logically, it is a vote for waterboarding because the White House has used this legal explanation, this legal cutthroat explanation, in order to…in order to justify what they admit to having already done. [..]

This decision is so plainly a political decision. This is John McCain reversing himself, not only in terms of being for waterboarding now, but the grounds on which he is for waterboarding. I mean, he's the guy who made the argument that the Army Field Manual was sufficient. The only thing we need to understand about this is that John McCain made a sudden and otherwise inexplicable change of heart since November. A change of heart that brings him in line with what appears to be the Republican strategy for the general election this year, which is to pick deliberately provocative, deliberately controversial fights on the issues that they want this election to be about. They want the election to be about war, and torture and Guantanamo. So they're picking fights on those issues, even though they know a lot of Americans disagree with them on these issues. They're picking fights on those issues so those will be the things we're talking about around the election because they think that will help Republicans.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/02/15/c...lop-on-torture/

Are you seriously expecting me to take that as a more serious and non-biased source of information? come on now, Steve. Let's start pulling out sources that aren't a biased, partisan blog. I mean you are always asking the conservatives to look behyond Fox News, right?

The fact, is McCain has taken some positions that are deeply unpopular with his own party. That's why people like Gary and Charles don't like him! George Bush and the ####### are a little unfair, I think.

Robin, blogs *ARE* sources for the O fans. Silly girl!

Same with Hillary fans. Your point is?

[no name 1]

Do we really want a Junior Senator in the White House who has built his campaign on promises of change but never clearly defines it other than to say that America is heading in the wrong direction and he can unite us? Sounds like candidate Bush in 2000. Universal health care will never be a reality because as a nation we cant afford it. Nancy Pelosi was supposed to change the way congress does business too.

The election will be a process of choosing the least negative and with regard to McCain, he would be the biggest negative.

Not sure the HC supporters think that....

It would be if Obama gets the nomination.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/105691/McCain-v...ers-McCain.aspx

Sorry Dev. I know that you want HC but I just don't see it happening. And your link just shows how this fight is handing the WH to McCain. The last 2 elections were decided by very slim margins and with this many dems either crossing over to McCain or staying home it does not look good for the dems. Steven can't see that. His loss.

I think you didn't word it clearly. I meant that HC supporters would pick McC over Obama in November.

In the heat of the primary season, i would bet those numbers are inflated. The race has been divisive.

Then the other question is, how many of the supporters polled would really vote for McCain regaurdless of who they support on the Democratic side.

If you'd care to show a source saying different numbers, please show me. Otherwise, your .02 is exactly that, .02.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

Are you seriously expecting me to take that as a more serious and non-biased source of information? come on now, Steve. Let's start pulling out sources that aren't a biased, partisan blog. I mean you are always asking the conservatives to look behyond Fox News, right?

The fact, is McCain has taken some positions that are deeply unpopular with his own party. That's why people like Gary and Charles don't like him! George Bush and the ####### are a little unfair, I think.

Have you been eating over at Gary's place? Seriously, it's not the source that matters if we're talking about facts. Set aside whatever opinion you find in either of those pieces and refute the facts...or humbly accept that McCain did in fact flip flop on his stance against torture.

The source matters with regards to spinning of the "facts" . You hate spin, right?

Things sound a little more nuanced over at the New York Times (yes a "liberal" newspaper)

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/14/politics...and&emc=rss

And I'm sorry I don't accept it - maybe he is not beyond reproach or perfect, but what he did in the Senate hearings took some balls.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

So when an HC supporter actually believes in their candidate (you know in the nomination race that is not over yet) - it's fair game to mock them? But not when the tables are turned. The hypocrisy is written all over the wall Steven.

Hypocrisy is so overrated...and overstated.

[no name 1]

Are you seriously expecting me to take that as a more serious and non-biased source of information? come on now, Steve. Let's start pulling out sources that aren't a biased, partisan blog. I mean you are always asking the conservatives to look behyond Fox News, right?

The fact, is McCain has taken some positions that are deeply unpopular with his own party. That's why people like Gary and Charles don't like him! George Bush and the ####### are a little unfair, I think.

Have you been eating over at Gary's place? Seriously, it's not the source that matters if we're talking about facts. Set aside whatever opinion you find in either of those pieces and refute the facts...or humbly accept that McCain did in fact flip flop on his stance against torture.

The source matters with regards to spinning of the "facts" . You hate spin, right?

Things sound a little more nuanced over at the New York Times (yes a "liberal" newspaper)

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/14/politics...and&emc=rss

And I'm sorry I don't accept it - maybe he is not beyond reproach or perfect, but what he did in the Senate hearings took some balls.

Why are you apologizing for your feelings? No one else does!

So when an HC supporter actually believes in their candidate (you know in the nomination race that is not over yet) - it's fair game to mock them? But not when the tables are turned. The hypocrisy is written all over the wall Steven.

Hypocrisy is so overrated...and overstated.

EVERY SINGLE POST you made about my candidate today is negative & condescending. What part of that hypocrisy can you not see?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Are you seriously expecting me to take that as a more serious and non-biased source of information? come on now, Steve. Let's start pulling out sources that aren't a biased, partisan blog. I mean you are always asking the conservatives to look behyond Fox News, right?

The fact, is McCain has taken some positions that are deeply unpopular with his own party. That's why people like Gary and Charles don't like him! George Bush and the ####### are a little unfair, I think.

Have you been eating over at Gary's place? Seriously, it's not the source that matters if we're talking about facts. Set aside whatever opinion you find in either of those pieces and refute the facts...or humbly accept that McCain did in fact flip flop on his stance against torture.

The source matters with regards to spinning of the "facts" . You hate spin, right?

Things sound a little more nuanced over at the New York Times (yes a "liberal" newspaper)

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/14/politics...and&emc=rss

And I'm sorry I don't accept it - maybe he is not beyond reproach or perfect, but what he did in the Senate hearings took some balls.

R, that article is over 2 years ago. The flip flop happened recently.

[dalegg 143]

The Republicans have a slim to none chance of winning back the WH this November, and they can all thank that yahoo who's in office right now for that.

Everytime I see someone make a statement like this it amazes me, because what you are basically saying is that Obama is a Shoe-In to win the Presidency.

You have got to be kidding me if you actually believe that Obama is a lock to win. Say it to yourself. "The first African American President, who is one of the most liberal candidates ever to make it to the general election, is a shoe in to win"

Come on man. It could happen, and I wouldn't be shocked if it did, but if it does it will be by a narrow margin.

[cieloazul 0]

The Republicans have a slim to none chance of winning back the WH this November, and they can all thank that yahoo who's in office right now for that.

I would agree that the Republicans wouldn't have a chance if they were not running against a party with leaders who are idiots. The DNC and Howard Dean decided to ignore two large states, Florida and Michigan. What were they thinking? Would the republicans who are a majority in Florida's legislature back down or push forward and let the demwits take the fall. Most of the voters in Florida blame the DNC. That's not to say the republicans aren't w/o idiots too,,,hey, maybe the demwits do have a chance this fall after all, look who was elected about 8 years ago.

[GaryC 7]

The Republicans have a slim to none chance of winning back the WH this November, and they can all thank that yahoo who's in office right now for that.

Everytime I see someone make a statement like this it amazes me, because what you are basically saying is that Obama is a Shoe-In to win the Presidency.

You have got to be kidding me if you actually believe that Obama is a lock to win. Say it to yourself. "The first African American President, who is one of the most liberal candidates ever to make it to the general election, is a shoe in to win"

Come on man. It could happen, and I wouldn't be shocked if it did, but if it does it will be by a narrow margin.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The Republicans have a slim to none chance of winning back the WH this November, and they can all thank that yahoo who's in office right now for that.

Everytime I see someone make a statement like this it amazes me, because what you are basically saying is that Obama is a Shoe-In to win the Presidency.

You have got to be kidding me if you actually believe that Obama is a lock to win. Say it to yourself. "The first African American President, who is one of the most liberal candidates ever to make it to the general election, is a shoe in to win"

Come on man. It could happen, and I wouldn't be shocked if it did, but if it does it will be by a narrow margin.

Not exactly a shoe-in, but the Democrats as a Party are having the WH practically handed to them on silver platter, thanks to Dubbya. That's all I'm saying.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

Are you seriously expecting me to take that as a more serious and non-biased source of information? come on now, Steve. Let's start pulling out sources that aren't a biased, partisan blog. I mean you are always asking the conservatives to look behyond Fox News, right?

The fact, is McCain has taken some positions that are deeply unpopular with his own party. That's why people like Gary and Charles don't like him! George Bush and the ####### are a little unfair, I think.

Have you been eating over at Gary's place? Seriously, it's not the source that matters if we're talking about facts. Set aside whatever opinion you find in either of those pieces and refute the facts...or humbly accept that McCain did in fact flip flop on his stance against torture.

The source matters with regards to spinning of the "facts" . You hate spin, right?

Things sound a little more nuanced over at the New York Times (yes a "liberal" newspaper)

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/14/politics...and&emc=rss

And I'm sorry I don't accept it - maybe he is not beyond reproach or perfect, but what he did in the Senate hearings took some balls.

R, that article is over 2 years ago. The flip flop happened recently.

sorry I actually meant this one

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/17/us/polit...xprod=permalink