McCain on offshore drilling: For it before he was against it before he was for it again; Update: McCain’s astounding flip-flop on windfall profits tax, plus a new global warming alarmist ad
Scroll down for updates…McCain now bashing Obama on windfall profits tax, releases new global warming alarmist ad, Dems support nationalizing oil industry…
Just a recap: McCain was AWOL on the windfall profits tax debate in the Senate (a failed Carter relic that he says he’d be “glad to look at”). He had nothing to say about Rep. John Peterson’s effort to lift the offshore drilling ban when it was up for a vote last week. And as I noted back on May 22, he has channeled the entire Democrat presidential field’s class warfare rhetoric and repeatedly referred to the oil industry’s “obscene profits.”
Now, he’s announced he wants to lift the offshore drilling moratorium and will give an energy speech tomorrow. He was for it before he was against it before he was for it again. Positively Kerryesque:
With the price of gasoline surging past $4 a gallon in many parts of the country, Senator John McCain called today for the lifting of the federal moratorium on offshore oil drilling for states that want to permit it.
He said that he also favors giving states incentives to allow exploration, part of an energy proposal that he said would be “very helpful in the short term for resolving our energy crisis.”
Mr. McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, said the impact of high fuel prices was hitting Americans, not only at the pump, but also in the form of rising food prices and threats of inflation.
“We must embark on a national mission to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil and reduce greenhouse gases through the development of alternate energy sources,” Mr. McCain said, adding that he continues to support a summer gas tax holiday.
Mr. McCain has a mixed record on the issue in the Senate. In 2001 and 2006, he voted in favor of offshore oil drilling in Florida, but in 2003 he voted against it in Florida and other states. Mr. McCain has consistently opposed drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Oh, and if you thought for a moment that McCain might back off his Hillary/Edwards/Obama-esque bashing of profits, think again:
McCain is set to give a speech about energy to oil executives in Houston Tuesday, where he is expected to chide the industry for the huge profits they have made during a tough time for gasoline consumers.
Flashback: Reagan vs. McCain on profits, business, and the free market
***
Update: More speech preview here.
Update: McCain supporters say I should give credit to McCain for changing his mind.
Well, I certainly give him credit for whiplash-inducing political expediency.
Via Allah comes word that McCain is now bashing Obama on the failed windfall profits tax.
I remind you again of what McCain was telling voters about it less than a month ago.
Transcript:
MCCAIN: “Um, I don’t like obscene profits being made anywhere–and I’d be glad to look not just at the windfall profits tax–that’s not what bothers me–but we should look at any incentives that we are giving to people, that or industries or corporations that are distorting the market.”
Straight Talk Express, meet Google and the Internets.
McCain’s also got a new global warming alarmist ad out now, bragging about how he “stood up to the President and sounded the alarm on global warming.” This screen shot says it all:
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- If This is Monday, John McCain’s Energy Policy Has Probably Changed | The Sundries Shack
- Monday Links : Stop The ACLU
- Don Surber » Blog Archive » It’s the oil, stupid
- John McCain = Disaster | The TIW Blog
- Neocon News » McCain: Our only hope for cheaper gas or is he just full of the stuff?
- McCain Is All Over The Place On Offshore Drilling « Beltway Snark
- Does He Mean it? | The Hinge Of Fate
- Hot Air » Blog Archive » Rasmussen: Plurality of Democrats support … nationalizing America’s oil industry
- Orange Punch » Blog Archive » Malkin documents McCain’s drilling flip-flops - OCRegister.com
- Born Again Oil Man: John “spud” McCain–Praise The Lord and Start Drilling « Pronk Palisades
- Pro Cynic
- EckerNet.Com » Blog Archive » For Crist’s Sake Why??
- The Dan Lee Report » Blog Archive » Democrats stall for time on your dime with Offshore Oil Drilling Bill
- Left Flank: Yet More Political Nonsense about Drilling
- Michelle Malkin » Obama, Paris, Britney, and Brangelina
- Michelle Malkin » Rock the House: What should Republicans do now?
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
McCain wins…
November 13, 2008 09:31 AM by Michelle Malkin
“McCain is a liberal. He should change his position on drilling and the windfall profits tax if he wants my vote.”
[McCain changes his positions]
“McCain flip-flops as bad as a liberal. He should have stood his ground, he’s a political opportunist, I’ll never vote for him now.”
[29Victor smacks forehead]
…
They cry “listen to us, listen to us, we’re not going to change for you, you change for us.” But when he does change for them they pile on with another attack.
If McCain is “damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t” then why should he listen to conservatives at all? All that they are doing is proving to him that it was a mistake to listen to them.
Irish Rose:
You have a point. Many of these “churches” have lost sight of basic moral principles, and abortion is one of them.
What I find repugnant is the hypocrisy of these people who claim to have some kind of conservative “high ground”, yet don’t give a damn about abortion, which is the fundamental human right.
If a person cannot defend the most basic right, which is the right to life, then all else falls by the wayside.
Irish Rose
and
atheling
Yes and amen.
Sorry, the linguistic equivalent for in English for “Sirrah” when applied to a female is unprintable on any board…
Misdirection! (pun intended :p )
Young Lady, If you read my posts, you’ll see that I only accuse people of lying when I have the goods on them…
I pay one of my grandsons to cut&save from a few blogs and from all of The Mighty McCain’s™ collected works: his words, his votes, the legislation he sponsors, (even when he votes against it or doesn’t vote…).
I’d do the same with the O’bomb’r, except there isn’t enough there to keeep the child gainfully employed for more than 45 minutes…
BUT, to answer you question:
His actions show he won’t *really* follow through on offshore drilling, whereas his actions vis-a-vis Gitmo’s sorry inhabitance are well documented.
Look, he’s already reversing himself on offshore drilling… and the electrons proclaiming his greatness on rethinking that aren’t even cold yet…
BTW, since I’ve answered your question, answer mine: see comments #141 & 179…
It’s both. McCain flips and flops and panders for political expediency, but the man’s true colors are found in his wanting to close Gitmo. I don’t see the contradiction you are so desperately trying to force.
29Victor:
Exactly. Damned either way.
Notice how they howl about his “pandering” and “lies” when it’s an issue in their favor, and then scream it’s the truth when it’s an issue against them?
Another downside to a McCain presidency is that we’ll have massive MDS for the next four years. It’s bad enough with the moonbats on the left and their BDS, now we have moonbats on the right with MDS.
Just so. How can you support McCain?
Have you checked anything I’ve asked?
If not, it seems you are as “feel-good” as the obamanation-supporters, willing to buy a pig-in-a-poke.
– martin.musculus
I don’t talk to puke.
On June 17th, 2008 at 12:30 pm, 29Victor said:
Precisely.
29Victor:
So what makes you think this is actual change and not lip service? Talk is cheap. To borrow the motto of a wonderful state: “Show Me.”
Hey guys.. I just noticed that those idiots are quoting McCain’s website!
Instead of going to the congressional records!
no wonder they’re all in the tank for McCain!
These people deserve the same scorn as those who get their facts about the Obamanation from his web site!
– martin.musculus
Irish Rose said:
Irish Rose you are lying to yourself if when presented with the facts about McCain, you still think the facts are in error. When I look at a presidential candidate or other office holder I look at the facts about the candidate, not whether he has an “R” or “D”….the “D”s I ‘ve never voted for.
The plain fact about John McCain is that dog won’t hunt, and it is irritating to say the least the number of people on this blog who seem to believe he is something that he is not.
If you still will vote for McCain despite the information on him, fine.
The rest of us will make our decisions accordingly
What a set of maroons!
-musculus
To continue from my comment at #208, you people who are saying, “see! he’s changed!” are precisely the gullible ones politicians such as McCain depend upon.
Hey pukehead:
You didn’t click on the link I provided, did you?
It’s not McCain’s website, it’s an independent organization called “On The Issues”, and it provides ALL the candidates voting records.
Another reason not to listen to idiots like yourself.
On June 17th, 2008 at 12:15 pm, atheling said:
Why is it that when McCain says that he is for offshore drilling, it is “pandering” and “lies”, but when he says to close Gitmo, it’s the Gospel truth?
Which is it, boys?
They’re probably in the pay of the Reform Institute!
That’s why they refuse to address issues w/o using his talking points!
– martin.musculus
On June 17th, 2008 at 12:36 pm, atheling said:
I tend to think of martin as a childish, narcissistic, argumentative old goat who likes to argue for the adrenaline rush and has bullied others all of his life without consequence. He’s encouraged by the anonymity of the internet and uses these forums as a narcissistic supply.
He reminds me a lot of my abusive ex, who wouldn’t grow up even if he were paid to do it.
Irish Rose:
Notice how they ignore the points on abortion?
They stick their fingers in their ears and scream “lalalalala, I’m not listening”.
Boys. Hypocritical buffoons.
[sigh]
Here we go again.
You would think, that reading this blog, it was John McCain’s fault, he got the nomination.
When the plain, simple fact is, the Fourth Estate banged the drums, and blew the whistles, until he secured the nomination.
Now, the so-called “right-wing blogosphere” is doing everything in it’s power to secure the election for Democrats.
[sigh]
Irish Rose:
Yeah, I noticed over the past few months that miniscule’s posts, on every topic, are as relevant and intelligent as a 9 year old’s.
See how he LIED about my link? Said it was from McCain’s site (he didn’t even bother clicking on it) and then when I proved him wrong, he changed tactics and made some lame response about it probably being in McCain’s pocket.
MDS. It’s gonna be uglier than BDS.
franksalterego:
And the MDS moonbats are playing right into the Left’s hands.
What “points” on abortion? Are you referring to your strawman arguments? Get this through your head: abortion will never be illegal in this country, even if Roe v. Wade is overturned. Overturn it, and the issue goes right back to the states and state legislators.
#218:
Here you are, Mr. Conservative, proving my earlier words: you blame the voters for electing RINOs, but you attack anyone who won’t vote for McCain based on their principles. You, sir, are a hypocrite of the highest order.
nicely said.
Sadly, that can’t ever be said of me… I was never an Enlisted. It is a term of endearment, (in a frustrated way…), so thank you!
and it’s “puke”, not “pukehead”. If you are going to lapse into mil.slang, at least show respect for the mil. by getting it right
It’s not McCain’s website, it’s an independent organization called “On The Issues”, and it provides ALL the candidates voting records.
Then why didn’t any of you catch S.1805?
I guess that you were more interested in conning than in accuracy, hummm?
Still can’t answer my questions, huh…
Don’t think I didn’t notice. I guess they don’t pay well enough at The Reform Institute for you to buy a clue!
– martin.musculus
PS:
OH! you mean:
The same Gordon, Jesse who works for MTV?
Oh, brother!
-musculus
khan thinks he/she can run a two-bit hustle on a Republican.
HAH
I didn’t have anything to do with McAmnesty getting the nomination (which until the convention hasn’t happened) and I won’t do anything to get him elected.
Yes, Obama is the worst I could imagine for America, but McAmnesty strikes the fatal blow for conservatism so what does it matter?
The only thing I’m interested in is a way to stop the convention from actually handing the nomination that the news media elected McAmnesty for.
I agree with those you say we can’t trust McAmnesty’s “position” on anything because it changes depending on his audience and which side of the bed he got up on.
On June 17th, 2008 at 12:46 pm, atheling said:
Sadly, it’s been going on for months now.
Probably because our good hostess, who is otherwise an outstanding blogger, is doing the very same thing.
Rational voices of reason tend to be drowned out here by fundamentalist shriekers, and its’ very sad. Most of the forward-thinking Republicans that I know abandoned this place to the shriekers a long time ago.
Some of us have tried to stay around to be a voice of reason here in CAPS land, but its’ a fruitless endeavor I fear.
I love how the McCainaanites try to marginalize those opposed to McCain as “fundamentalists”. I’ve yet to see any one of you fall under your label of “rational voice of reason”.
and “Forward-thinking Republicans” = progressive RINOs.
Irish Rose:
I know. I have been a Malkin admirer for years, but this has really turned me off. I always considered Michelle pro life, but she seems to have thrown that issue by the wayside in preference to McCain Derangement Syndrome.
She and her ilk would prefer to have Obama elected, desite his horrific stance on abortion, from which McCain differs substantially.
These people are still stuck on the primaries, even though the game is over.
If all you Obamatertites want to shill for him, do it.
But, don’t try to pull the wool over our eyes, without passing out the Visine.
What? WhoIS lied?
I don’t think so. You’ve been found out.
BTW, Irish Rose:
abusive EX?
Where have you answered ONE of my questions?
Not one, ever…
You just passive-aggressive and claim I’m just being argumentative.
Claim I lied about your link, (when it was a mis-read… I’m working on a PDA…).
I seem to notice you’ve had your own little difficulties, and I’m hand-coding the HTML.
Well, say what you want, it is obvious you won’t answer m question because you can’t.
That tells us all we need to know. Since the supporters of a man are a good judge of the man, you have thoroughly convinced me. I was on the fence, but I wanted to see how McCaininites reacted to some substantive questions.
This started an inveighing vituperation of me and mine, the Conservatism I hold so dear.
Yes, you’ve convinced me.
I have no more to say here.
No votes for McCain.
– martin.musculus
#231:
Please stop with the strawmen arguments. Besides it being intellectually dishonest, it is also intellectually void.
Listen to them denigrate our hostess, it shows the lack of class these McCaninites.
- musculus
From above:
Thoughtless ramblings of a dimwitted old man…
Ahh, Khan, doesn’t #231 poit to your comment? (it could be the PDA…)
- musculus
What?!? You mean all of this stellar debating and most excellent argumentative techniques of calling non-McCain voters names, dodging questions, using manipulative language and filling the board with hate speech is not convincing you?
I am amazed.
You finally understand McCain!
Taking the grandkids out for an afternoon!
Bye All!
– martin.musculus
This McCain guy gets worse everyday - how can a patriot vote for a man like him?
Your hypocrisy on abortion stands.
You and your ilk state that McCain is no different than Obama, yet his voting record on abortion, which is a conservative issue, differs substantially.
You are no conservative. Conservatives are PRO LIFE. Ronald Reagan was pro life. John McCain is pro life (albeit imperfectly). Obama is NOT pro life. Got it?
I am conservative. I am pro life. When given two candidates to choose from, I pick the pro life candidate. When two candidates are not my choice, yet one is pro life, and one is not, I go with the pro life candidate.
That is how I vote. I vote with my conscience, something of which many of you do not possess.
Wow, I haven’t seen so much red on red violence since(insert harmless racially insensitive crack about an old Native American battle here)
I respect the hell out of Khan and Abstracts views, and I think that their ideologies on voting could result in politics being changed for the better.
On the other hand I have a few former Nader fans who can never fully forgive themselves for helping to blow the 2000 election for Gore.
It’s not easy. Good read. Talk amongst yourselves. Good day.
I said McCain voted properly SOME of the time. SOME of the time gives me zero comfort for the future.
McCain’s actions on other issues give me zero comfort for the future.
And Rose - please refrain from the name calling. I’m pretty sure that some who disagree with you on the proper course of action are better educated than you, more successful than you, and so forth. Not meant to belittle you, just please recognize that you do not have a corner on logical thought any more than many others here. Your comments that (paraphrasing here) “religious zealots” are all mental midgets displays a most amazing sense of arrogance on your part. You are right that there are sheep who will follow leaders off the cliff. But to equate all “evangelicals” as mindless unthinking dweebs is flat out wrong.
Lastly, from many of the comments here, I think most of us agree this election is very important. We agree on many of the issues. We simply disagree on the proper course of action from here.
On June 17th, 2008 at 1:18 pm, martin.musculus said:
Don’t let the door hit your bullying arse on the way out, martin.
I’m sure you’ll be back later… narcissists always return to their supply.
- Donut44
Look, I called you no names at all. Then after you accuse me of doing so, you turn around and infer that I’m a liberal, which is patently untrue. Pot kettle black. Moreover, I did argue on his merits, which you’d know if you looked back at my first comment on this topic. Taking words out of context? Fine, let’s all quit quoting one another completely. Anything else, and we’re open to accusations of ‘taking words out of context’. Shoot, I could accuse you of the same thing, since you quoted me as well. I’m not accusing you of any such thing of course, because I don’t believe you’ve done that. . .and neither have I.
- Donut44
It will help prevent Obama from taking office. That in itself furthers the conservative cause. Do you not agree? I voted for Bush twice not because I thought Bush was the best choice for “The Conservative Movement”, but because I thought he was a better choice for America than his either of his opponents. I am proud of that choice.
I guess the difference between us, is that I differ from The Conservative Movement on a few issues, tending to be a fiscal and foreign policy conservative and a social moderate. The welfare of “The Conservative Movement” is not paramount to me. However, preventing “The Liberal Movement” from putting its star in office and taking the only other branch of government they need to pass any old legislation they please is of unsurpassed importance to me. You are welcome to disagree with me, or think me crazy. . .but allow me to consider crazy anyone who thinks it’s a better idea to stay home than cast their vote to prevent Obama from getting the Presidency.
#242:
You are you talking to, strawman?
Is there something un-principled or hypocritical about supporting the Least Worst of the Worst?
If there is, I’d like to have you point it out.
McCain makes ME a bit uncomfortable, too…But, the alternative is a total Train Wreck.
I was closing my different Firefox windows, and I noticed this. I had to comment on it, then I really shall go for the day.
McCain really isn’t that bad — as a Senator. Especially if he was 1 or 2 of a block of Conservatives.
He could “Maverick” all he wanted, get all the butt-kissing from MSM he could eat, and still do no harm to the country.
As President, for reasons I have placed down in great detail else where on this site, he’d be a disaster for our country… probably even worse than that progressive-socialist Obama. This because of the agit-prop.
Note, however, you can tell a lot by how a man’s supporters act.
The McCaininites use Obama-tactics, (which are really Alinski’s tactics) to demonize their opponents, hoping to frustrate them into responding in kind.
I’ve read Alinski, and Most of what passes for the basis of socialistic/communist belief. Plus, I’ve lived through these things, the changes in our country.
Look at their response to that: “ramblings of a dimwitted old man”
ouch, ouch, ouch! such wit from the youngsters! From someone who knows not the difference of “Sir” from “Sirrah”!
I am wounded mortal at the razor’s edge of your wit! (or s it your nose, irish? How like Rudolf’s is it?)
I’ve noticed you here before, ILoveMyCountry. You seem the sort able to find facts, rather than haranguing with empty venom. I don’t really mind venom, venom can mean a view passionately held. I just tire of it when there’s no meat to to it.
Well, DIL is here w/the grankids! I really have to go!
Good luck ILoveMyCountry!
– martin.musculus
Yashmak
A better post and I will respond in kind. So be it, if I called you a liberal, I was out of line, as it is true I do not know you or your position. I did say and will hold to the idea that there many conservatives who say they are because “it is the thing” to be in the republican party, and yet they have no idea what that means. Is that you? You say no, so I am talking about you.
As for you questions or statements, I do not think you are crazy and I have said it before, that if you want to vote McCain, go ahead, but don’t think me crazy for sticking to my principles. But also don’t take me saying that as an implication that I thus mean you are not sticking to your principles.
I too voted for Bush twice (three times if you take the first Bush into account)but he was a different type of candidate than McCain. Do I think electing McCain will further conservatism, no I do not and yes I do think an Obama presidency would preserve conservatism and the country better than McCain and I have stated my reasons on this very board.
I AM going to vote and I do not want Obama to be president. I truly believe McCain has a great chance to win, with or without conservatives. However, I also agree with you that those who stay home are no good and proving nothing.
I would believe that, in and of itself, would be a self explanatory statement. Think about it for a bit, and let me know what you come up with.
Imagine, for a moment, Obama as the Chief Executive.
Who would he be beholding to?…The People?…Or, a Democrat controlled Congress?
He’d be nothing more than a puppet, with a Liberal/Democrat Congress pulling the strings.
This is, without a doubt, one of the most dangerous situations, I’ve ever seen, or could’ve imagined.
Depends on your principles. If you believe in electing Republicans above anything else, then it is neither unprincipled nor hypocritical to vote for McCain. If you believe that either McCain or Obama will be a train wreck, then it makes no difference if you vote for McCain. If you believe that the train wreck will be blamed on conservatives in any event (and I do), then it is marginally better to have a Democrat in office to take the heat rather than a RINO who will be portrayed as a conservative.
The abortion argument (to address the Cactus Rose and the pretendress to nobility) is and always will be a strawman. That doesn’t mean I am not pro-life, despite your above megabytes of ranting. It is a moot argument for the simple reason that it has been placed in the province of the courts, and that can only be changed via a constitutional amendment. There is not the slightest chance that that is going to happen. It takes a 2/3rds majority of both houses of Congress and ratification by the states, neither of which is going to happen. So your single issue on which to hang your McCain votes is irrelevant. And by the way, I know what a cactus rose is, you thorny old cow. I’ve got a back meadow full of them - along with quite a few piles of what you’ve been spouting here for the past two days.
Yes frank, but more to the point…you just described most politicians. Do you REALLY think any of those clowns care about anything past your vote?
This is a case where really, its 6 in one hand and half a dozen on the other.
Frank,
Imagine this, McCain as Chief Executive, still in Senator mode and looking to appease his comrades on the other side, bound and determined to not be labeled as another republican who “divided”. Now, though, many republicans in the Senate and House feel they should go along with McCain because he is a republican, so now democrats and republicans alike vote the way McCain wants and vice versa.
But McCain doesn’t attribute any of his success to conservatives, but instead loathes them and talks of how their lack of support was a reason for his victory, because the American people have rejected the “extreme” views of the conservative right and that the people prefer a kinder, more centrists elective body.
Now, in order to appease his comrades on the left and assure that his judge appointees are the same as the ones that they replace (which will all be liberal) he says it is only fair that he appoint moderates, so we replace a Kennedy with another moderate and Roe vs. Wade moves no where. When the right tries to object, McCain gets furious and calls the right traitors and the same kind that sabotaged him before in every election. His indignation for the “extreme” right grows and grows and reflects on the people, as the MSM continues with it and the conservatives are labeled more and more as far right wackos and sent to the fringe. Soon the ideas of liberty and freedom are things for wackos, not the GOP.
Taxes are raised “on the rich”, 1st amendment rights are stricken further, illegal immigration is not dealt with, SS is not dealt with, energy crisis is not dealt with and education, well, it is still run by the extremely capable federal government.
It’s more like, pop-rocks in one hand, a stick of dynamite in the other.
Which candidate would lead this nation down the safest path?
If you believe, that it’s Obama, then this argument is over with.
“Republican” notwithstanding
“Democrat” notwithstanding
Frank,
Where the real difference arises between all of us, is in the idea that there are only two candidates. If I were forced to vote one of the two, I would go McCain.
Luckily, we are not and I would vote Chuck Baldwin.
Hmmmm,
1. Safe?
2. Dangerous?
3. Throw your vote away?
Yes,
I see, ALL SORTS of logic and reasoning there.
“throw your vote away” = voting for anyone without frank’s seal of approval. people, if you vote for the loser, you’ve wasted your vote. this is the logic the McCainaanites are giving you.
Again with the unfounded “throwing away the vote” rhetotic. If someone chooses to vote for someone else, how is it thrown away? The only vote thrown away is the one never cast in the first place. I’d appreciate it if you could, for just a moment, actually respect the voting rights of others. There is actually alot of logic or reasoning there, but unfortunately you’re not willing to see it.
But because your candidate of choice loves to go across the aisle, its a blindfold test guessing which one is in the left hand.
I’ve so far avoided the abortion angle of the thread because, as you can see above, it just flares tempers and doesn’t really suit our purposes here. It’s only avoidance because right now, its not the primary issue of the thread.
I say Chuck Norris. LOL
Now, it’s about “frank”…Too bad, “frank” isn’t running for president.
Two-bit con-game
*chuckle*
See, you say that…and it makes me wonder which nominee we’re talking about
Funny,
I don’t hear anyone making the case FOR Obama.
Whut’s up wit’ dat’?
Of course people are not making a case for Obama.
If you want an Obama for President discussion, you should go here.
That’s a silly question.
odd..the link didnt post.
my mistake.
here:
http://www.dailykos.com
Lots of Messiah for Overlord talk there.
On June 17th, 2008 at 1:59 pm, txvet2 said:
Sod off.
Lemme’ set you straight, as best I can.
I voted for Ross Perot - the spoiler in the 1992 election.
I threw my vote away, to “send a message”
I’ve regretted it, every day since.
There’s no need to “set me straight” as if i’m some errant child. Your condescending remarks don’t win you any converts to the cause, and honestly, aren’t necessary.
You voted to send a message. While it’s your right, if you didn’t vote for someone who you thought would actually do a good job, and voted to just make some sort of statement, then you have no one to blame but yourself.
I am not just voting for someone because they’re the least offensive person between two people I dislike. I’m not even sure who I’m voting for as of yet, and i’ve still got plenty of time to research and review what I want to do with *my* vote.
But what I do know is, when I walk away from the polls on Election Day, I’ll walk away with a sense that I’ve performed my civic duty (and participated in an event that exercises my right to vote), and I won’t regret the choice I’ve made.
I’m just not sure why people can’t grasp that simple concept.
#269:
Who cares? Are you trying to suggest that through some insanely illogical train of thought that anyone who doesn’t vote R or D is “throwing their vote away”, and that any non R or D vote is one of “protest”? My god, you are one arrogant and clueless sonofagun.
I guess I’d rather have a candidate that crosses the aisle to the left on some issues, to one who never leaves the left side of the aisle.
I think, and of course this is just my humble opinion, that many of you are severely underestimating the damage that will be caused by an Obama presidency, and severely overestimating the damage that would be caused by a Mccain presidency.
I guess at this point, it’s apt to say I’m just going to agree to disagree with about half of you. It’s obvious given the direction the discussion is taking that we have about the same chance of changing each others’ minds on this, as we do of changing each others’ minds on issues like abortion.
If it isn’t “protest,” tell us what it is.
Give us realists a clue
I appreciate you at least being civil in your disagreement.
While you’re right about the aisle crossing…I still would rather have one that doesnt leave our aisle, and sticks to their guns. Wishful thinking, I know, but…nonetheless.
I still, as a matter of personal principle, can just up and vote for a candidate, just to keep another out of office. To me, it doesn’t sit well.
*can’t
sorry for the typo.
Democracy has always been about picking the person who will screw up least, there can be no real doubt that is McCain.
McCain loves the USA and has made great personal sacrifices for it. Obama hasn’t given anything to this country, just taken… I can’t believe there is even a question in anybodies minds here about allowing him to become president of the United States.
1. Safe Candidate polling 48%
2. Dangerous Candidate polling 48%
3. “Best” Candidate polling 2%
Tough choice
If people like myself or khan were casting votes for Obama, I could give your statement some validation, but that’s simply not the case. And our statements in this thread show that very fact.
Hmmm, and we have twisted logic?
Yashmak, you are right, just a differece in opinion. I see an Obama presidency as horrible, but easier to deal with. The GOP will grow stronger and be more a resistance to the left leaning policies of an Obama than be a willing accomplice to the left leaning McCain.
1. Safe Candidate feels sorry for mexicans, and polls 48%
2. Dangerous Candidate feels sorry for terrorists, and polls 48%
3. “Best” Candidate polls 2%
4. I think, I’ll disenfrancise myself, ’cause Candidate #1 is a poopy-head.
Don’t blame me
I believe you fit the definition of a fanatic, by Churchill’s standards.
“A fanatic is a man who cant change his mind and who wont change the subject.”
Who is the 2%? I’m not for Ron Paul. He’s naive and isnt even a candidate anymore. And Barr is along the same vein. They would get us killed with their flawed and ignorant foreign policy.
But.
This is why your discussion on the matter really is only me talking and you covering your ears. You don’t respect the hostess here as you’ve demonstrated today, you don’t respect nor can you actively and honestly debate the issue in front of you, and no matter what, you HAVE to be right because no one else is allowed to have an opinion that differs. You continue to say the same thing over and over, while not giving anyone else credit for their view. There are other people I’ve politely disagreed with, but you continue on, as if you’ll change someone’s mind with your antagonistic banter. You don’t want to hear anyone’s thoughts but your own. Sorry, it doesn’t work that way.
Let me break this down for you.
Obama…yes, dangerous. He’s sure to stab you right in the heart. He is a socialist and has only his interests and the interests of his friends in mind. He would be a disaster.
McCain. Safer? You certainly haven’t made ME feel safe as a voter, in order to go pitch my vote for him based on what you’ve presented here. Bill pointed out his service, which i’ve praised before. But McCain isn’t your friend, or your savior here Frank. He’s going to open the backdoor for the illegals, flooding our country out with people conservatives like me fight tooth and nail to get rid of from our neighborhoods. He’s all about derailing “obscene profit” but not about getting rid of “obscene taxing” which he’s all about collecting and getting more of from business and the private sector in general. Will he be a disaster? Bet the farm on it. He’ll just do it slower, and in the name of “bipartisan effort”. He’s not really any better than Obama…he just has a different party he’s running under.
So you tell me. Do you want to get stabbed in the front by the devil you know, or stabbed in the back by the one you don’t think will do it to start with?
No one here, at least that i’ve seen, has really made any compelling reason to vote for McCain. I don’t find the following things good reasons to vote for him:
1.He’s a veteran. (So what? Lots of people are veterans. That doesn’t convey some supernatural status for voting.)
2. He’s the lesser evil compared to Obama. (Again, So what? He’s still a viper. His venom is going to just corrode you from the inside instead of killing you outright. If i take the high road, and vote something else, then thats my *right* by law and my *choice*. And one I can live which, while you have made choices you can’t, Frank.)
3. He’s pro-life. (While that’s nice, there are alot of people who are pro-life. If this was the ONLY issue, then perhaps. But its not. And trying to make it that way, as was attempted earlier, doesn’t work either.)
4. Voting for someone else is throwing it away. (Hardly. I want to vote for someone I find is going to do a good job. And I, unlike Frank, will not leave the polls filled with regret for an action I took that wasn’t in line with my convictions.)
These are things we’ll have to agree to disagree. I just find that because you’re mind is so closed to anyone doing anything other than holding their nose and pulling the lever for McCain, that you’re not willing to give people credit for sticking to their own principles and doing what they believe is right. And isnt that what makes us better than our adversaries…doing what’s right? Sticking to our principles and maintaning them, regardless of the opposition or the difficulty? Are you so easily swayed that you would vote against your own beliefs? Well, I for one am not.
If someone can, between now and election day, give me *good* reasons to vote for McCain…If someone can show me he’s not the backstabber I think he’ll be, if someone can show me that I’m adamantly wrong and that McCain isn’t going to flush our country down the toilet, with just a slower water flow…then I mayhaps be swayed yet. But not today. And not by what, and how, you’ve presented today.
But you can ask McCain these things on the 4th…while him and Barry are over chatting it up with LA RAZA. I’ll be over here helping demagnatize our neighborhoods in the meantime.
Take that as you will.
Thanks for making the same tired argument, since you’re still assuming alot of things to get those ideas in place there.
I wont blame you. But you’ll blame me, regardless, unless I agree with you.
And I don’t.
Poopyhead.
ROFL
Does every person who criticizes/hates the “Evil Oil Companies” and wants to punish them, comprehend just how badly that will hurt America and Americans?
How many Americans own stock in these companies? How many Americans own stock period. An uncapitalist solution to this “problem” will have massive ripple effects throughout the markets, pensions,retirement plans etc.
When will these people get that knee jerk reactions will have massive unintended but easily forseeable consequences.
There are easy, good solutions to these problems. One blend of gasoline for the entire country would be a huge help. Nuclear power plants fast tracked and immune from legal delays would be another. Merely announcing such would depress some of the high price hysteria. Similar Drill here drill now legislation would also help.
Oh, is that right?…Disagreeing with someone is disrespectful?
From the Obama Camp’s lips to your ears.
Next, you’ll accuse me of racism and bigotry.
What are you trying to do? Get back on topic? How dare you try to hijack our hijacked thread???
Seriously, I’ve tried to make that argument in private conversations with my neighbors and others here when they complain about the high prices. The quickest way to bring down the prices, as I think I said earlier in this thread (and know I’ve said elsewhere) is to simply announce we are going to begin developing our own resources. That includes exploiting Alaska and offshore, the Bakken formation in N. Dakota/Montana, the Green River oil shale (Which according to some estimates could contain over 1 trillion BOE), plus coal/oil conversion and coal gassification, and nuclear. We have no shortage of energy, in other words. What we have is a shortage in will to develop it. A few new refineries wouldn’t hurt, either. Most people don’t realize what a bottleneck mere refinery capacity is, especially with a myriad of government imposed grades.
It doesn’t advance the debate much to call anyone who disagrees with you an Obama or DNC shill, either.
yeah, tx beat me to that one.
and no, DEAR, i’m sure that you’ve been absolutely respectful to MM the entire time you’ve been here. And she’s NEVER had to shut you down for being antagonistic or anything….
I notice you didn’t really answer my posts…just some simple retorts.
Could not the same be said from your quips though…from McCain’s website to your postings? At least that’s grounded in reality
*yawn* Work’s almost done though, about time to go home and kick back for the evening
#273:
Why? You’ll ignore it just as you’ve ignored it the last 1,000,000 times you’ve been told, you arrogant fool.
#284:
Disagreement isn’t, but being a condescending ass and belligerent is.
Indeed. It is choice A or choice B. Wrap your head around it.
What you have done here is rationalize losing an election to a socialist. The method that you have chosen to rationalize it is that when Obama screws up the USA it will make the GOP stronger.
Firstly, rooting for the worst in order to blame the opposition is exactly the sleazy tactic that people like Harry Reid have employed. The USA can not survive or prosper if half the population is rooting for collapse to teach the other half a lesson. Rooting for the worst for the USA is in my opinion traitorous, whether it be Nancy Pelosi or a so called conservative rationalizing rolling over for Obama.
Secondly, what you haven’t taken in to consideration is that once these entitlement programs are started you can not get rid of them. I invite you to show me one that has been willingly given up. Or that the appeasement that you are endorsing just might cost the USA a city to a freshly emboldened islamist terrorist movement.
Obamas damage will outlast him, he will mean the end of the USA as a superpower.
Welfare reform, passed by a Republican Congress and signed by Clinton. A Republican Congress, btw, that came about as a direct result of the election of WJB Clinton.
These are exactly the kind of tactics and rationalizations that the DNC is employing in order to cleave off the far right from the Republicans. They are pushing for blue on blue friendly fire by exploiting any opening they can get and they are getting their way.
Arguments that somehow letting Obama have his way with the country to disgust decent people into rebuilding the GOP are just plain idiotic, destructive to the USA and unworkable. I personally have little doubt that they came from a Madison ave. brainstorm session on how to divide the Republicans before the election.
I see, I’m not alone in my thinking…I’m glad to see, there’s someone who can articulate my ideas better than I do.
“Welfare reform, passed by a Republican Congress and signed by Clinton.”
So that got rid of welfare? Nope. Still there and going strong.
So txvet, are you adopting Harry Reids brilliant idea that what is bad for the country is good for your party?
Some of us actually love our country and don’t want to see others do it harm in order to have the luxury of saying “I told you so”.
Thanks franksalterego-
Anyone watching Laura Ingraham’s new show, Just In?
WOW !!!
Hard to see how that squares with your support for McCain, given his open borders philosophy, his drinking the global warming Koolaid, and his assault on the First Amendment, among other things. No, I don’t agree with Reid. I just see a better future if we get the socialism out of the Republican Party, not pander to it as McCain is doing. It may take 2-4 years of Obama to get rid of the Democrat Congress and the RINOs who enable them. That’s better than a continuing Democrat Congress passing their socialist agenda and having it signed by a President McCain, who will still be blamed, along with conservatives, for everything that goes wrong.
- Donut44
I think that’s a colossal gamble. With horrible legislation like FAIR being increasingly paraded about in Congress, and all indicators pointing to an increase in the Democrat majority of both the Senate and House this fall, allowing a President like Obama is quite possibly the worst thing we could do. Do you understand that the Democrats will no longer need a 2/3 majority to pass such legislation if Obama is sitting in the Oval Office? Do you realize that the bastion of conservative thought that is talk radio could easily fall victim to such legislation, silencing its voice to 10’s if not 100’s of thousands of voters nationwide?
If Obama takes office, how will we stop his healthcare program with stronger Democratic majorities in the House and Senate? That program alone will cost close to a trillion dollars in under a decade. . .money that will come out of your pocket and mine. No 2/3 vote required to override a veto there either. It’ll pass. How will a Republican, following Obama, be able to undo THAT? How will Republicans look to the general public after repealing universal healthcare?
And that’s not even touching on the issue of national security.
McCain isn’t left leaning. He just doesn’t lean as far right as you (or I) would like.
No, dammit, I wanted to catch Rush on the first segment.