Why John McCain could still beat Barack Obama in presidential race

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

What exactly are the "failing Bush economic policies"?

Why don't you ask Doug Holtz-Eakin (McCain's domestic policy adviser) that question? Somehow, McCain's campaign is busier campaigning against W's economic policies - with the exception of tax policy - than against Obama's.

The only thing he [McCain] shares in common with President Bush is the understanding of good tax policy. ...Sadly, it seems that's all President Bush understood on the economy.

[GaryC 7]

What exactly are the "failing Bush economic policies"?

Why don't you ask Doug Holtz-Eakin (McCain's domestic policy adviser) that question? Somehow, McCain's campaign is busier campaigning against W's economic policies - with the exception of tax policy - than against Obama's.

The only thing he [McCain] shares in common with President Bush is the understanding of good tax policy. ...Sadly, it seems that's all President Bush understood on the economy.

So how does this make McCain Bush's poodle? It seems he isn't. Be consistent Dog!

[Fandango 1,440]

What exactly are the "failing Bush economic policies"?

Why don't you ask Doug Holtz-Eakin (McCain's domestic policy adviser) that question? Somehow, McCain's campaign is busier campaigning against W's economic policies - with the exception of tax policy - than against Obama's.

The only thing he [McCain] shares in common with President Bush is the understanding of good tax policy. ...Sadly, it seems that's all President Bush understood on the economy.

So how does this make McCain Bush's poodle? It seems he isn't. Be consistent Dog!

bwahahhahahahahhahaha.

[mawilson 2,133]

Did you get that from Mein Kampf?

No, I never was a fan of Hitler.

Besides....it's mainly "white people" who would be the targets of such a thing if it were to address the concerns I listed.

He got that from "Stupid White Men"

[Gaby&Talbert 1]

McCain is a liberal republican and that is why he lost the last time he ran for president. If people think the next president regardless if it is Obama or McCain are going to turn things around and make the country grow at the rate it did in the last 20+ years they are crazy. The best thing we can hope for is someone who won't make things worse and that will keep us on a path of economic growth.

[mawilson 2,133]

The other effect the President has is his vetoing power and the sitting President has vetoed more legislation than any other president in history.

WHAT??? GWB has hardly vetoed anything at all.

Franklin Roosevelt vetoes: 635

Harry Truman vetoes: 250

Dwight Eisenhower vetoes: 181

John Kennedy vetoes: 21

Lyndon Johnson vetoes: 30

Richard Nixon vetoes: 43

Gerald Ford vetoes: 66

Jimmy Carter vetoes: 31

Ronald Reagan vetoes: 78

George H. W. Bush vetoes: 44

Bill Clinton vetoes: 37

George W. Bush vetoes: 10

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

Bush almost never vetoed anything when there was a Republican majority.

Republicans will try and frame the economy as something that went bad when the Democrats took control of Congress.

[SteveLaura 0]

The other effect the President has is his vetoing power and the sitting President has vetoed more legislation than any other president in history.

WHAT??? GWB has hardly vetoed anything at all.

Franklin Roosevelt vetoes: 635

Harry Truman vetoes: 250

Dwight Eisenhower vetoes: 181

John Kennedy vetoes: 21

Lyndon Johnson vetoes: 30

Richard Nixon vetoes: 43

Gerald Ford vetoes: 66

Jimmy Carter vetoes: 31

Ronald Reagan vetoes: 78

George H. W. Bush vetoes: 44

Bill Clinton vetoes: 37

George W. Bush vetoes: 10

Signing statements.

The first president to issue a signing statement was James Monroe.[7] Until the 1980s, with some exceptions, signing statements were generally triumphal, rhetorical, or political proclamations and went mostly unannounced. Until Ronald Reagan became President, only 75 statements had been issued; Reagan and his successors George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton produced 247 signing statements among the three of them.[8] By the end of 2004, George W. Bush had issued 108 signing statements containing 505 constitutional challenges.[8] As of January 30, 2008, he had signed 157 signing statements challenging over 1,100 provisions of federal law.[9]

Source

[Peikko 1,575]

I suppose if you identify America as being individualism enshrined constitutionally, then if people vote in a Democrat like Barack, it would be a step in the wrong direction. It seems that at least for some Americans the idea of society as a function of the state is just is anathama even though these self same people place great demands on citizens to behave as 'responsible' members of society.

If you believe that America is more than the some total of its individuals then I guess you might not take the same view.

[mawilson 2,133]

The other effect the President has is his vetoing power and the sitting President has vetoed more legislation than any other president in history.

WHAT??? GWB has hardly vetoed anything at all.

Franklin Roosevelt vetoes: 635

Harry Truman vetoes: 250

Dwight Eisenhower vetoes: 181

John Kennedy vetoes: 21

Lyndon Johnson vetoes: 30

Richard Nixon vetoes: 43

Gerald Ford vetoes: 66

Jimmy Carter vetoes: 31

Ronald Reagan vetoes: 78

George H. W. Bush vetoes: 44

Bill Clinton vetoes: 37

George W. Bush vetoes: 10

Signing statements.

The first president to issue a signing statement was James Monroe.[7] Until the 1980s, with some exceptions, signing statements were generally triumphal, rhetorical, or political proclamations and went mostly unannounced. Until Ronald Reagan became President, only 75 statements had been issued; Reagan and his successors George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton produced 247 signing statements among the three of them.[8] By the end of 2004, George W. Bush had issued 108 signing statements containing 505 constitutional challenges.[8] As of January 30, 2008, he had signed 157 signing statements challenging over 1,100 provisions of federal law.[9]

Source

How is it the same thing as a veto? Signing statements have no legal force.

[PlatyPius 5]

McCain is a liberal republican and that is why he lost the last time he ran for president. If people think the next president regardless if it is Obama or McCain are going to turn things around and make the country grow at the rate it did in the last 20+ years they are crazy. The best thing we can hope for is someone who won't make things worse and that will keep us on a path of economic growth.

I think the best we can hope for is someone who can possibly mend the shredded relations we have with all other countries on the planet. That's a no-brainer...only Obama has that potential. Plus, with his excellent oratory skills, I'm sure he can tell Mexico and Canada to stick NAFTA up their arses in such a way that they think it's a good idea. I suppose he should tell the Auto Union (UAW) to go screw itself as well. Wait....it already HAS screwed itself. There's a reason GM, Ford, and Chrysler built factories in Mexico and Canada.....no unions. Ergo, no idiot making $37.00/hour to install ashtrays in GM trucks. It's a basic assembly line....no one should be making over $20.00/hour. The people who build HP computers make $6.50/hour.....which is more difficult?

So, I think Obama is our best bet. He's the polar opposite of "W" when it comes to public speaking. Wouldn't it be nice to not look like idiots to the rest of the planet for a change?

McCain would only make our strained international relations even worse.

Oh, and let's actually get serious about alternative fuels, rather than just some feel good ####### to appease the populace while raking in the oil dollars. No reliance on foreign oil = a more prosperous America. Again, only a Democrat is going to lead the country that direction. Obama is a bike rider AND a Democrat, so maybe we'll see a funding package for the construction of bike "highways" for easier commuting.

Hey, a guy can dream, eh?

[Fandango 1,440]

The other effect the President has is his vetoing power and the sitting President has vetoed more legislation than any other president in history.

WHAT??? GWB has hardly vetoed anything at all.

Franklin Roosevelt vetoes: 635

Harry Truman vetoes: 250

Dwight Eisenhower vetoes: 181

John Kennedy vetoes: 21

Lyndon Johnson vetoes: 30

Richard Nixon vetoes: 43

Gerald Ford vetoes: 66

Jimmy Carter vetoes: 31

Ronald Reagan vetoes: 78

George H. W. Bush vetoes: 44

Bill Clinton vetoes: 37

George W. Bush vetoes: 10

can i use the same photo twice in one thread?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

What exactly are the "failing Bush economic policies"?

Why don't you ask Doug Holtz-Eakin (McCain's domestic policy adviser) that question? Somehow, McCain's campaign is busier campaigning against W's economic policies - with the exception of tax policy - than against Obama's.

The only thing he [McCain] shares in common with President Bush is the understanding of good tax policy. ...Sadly, it seems that's all President Bush understood on the economy.

So how does this make McCain Bush's poodle? It seems he isn't. Be consistent Dog!

I am consistent. McSame is Bush's Poodle. I have made no claim to the contrary. McCain's domestic policy adviser has made claims to the contrary in an effort to cloud the fact that McSame would continue on Bush's failed path. To do that, McCain's campaign is making a claim that Bush's economic policy stinks. They're campaigning against the very policies that they clearly intend to carry forward.

All Hail the Double Talk Express.

[mawilson 2,133]

can i use the same photo twice in one thread?

[Amby 490]

I think we're all f*cked either way so everyone should stop debating and get f*cked in a good way