digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

See the original image at salon.com —

Word from an "Obamacon": Why this Republican is Voting Obama

salon.com — I don't agree with Barack Obama on the Iraq war or on 65-70% of his policy positions, but something's got to give. As much as I respect McCain, he just doesn't get it. The McCain of 8 years ago is no more. The so called "Maverick" is an establishment tool who, if elected, will owe plenty of favors to the kind of corporatists and party hacks.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • tcbishop12, on 08/01/2008, -16/+109Here's another lifelong Republican (me, at 54 years of age this August) voting for Sen. Obama.
    • SaladCactusKing, on 08/03/2008, -39/+8Old digger is old.
    • halogenik, on 08/03/2008, -4/+51you're a big man for voting with your head instead of your political affiliations. Congratulations, a lot of people don't have the courage to do that.
      • akchrs, on 08/03/2008, -22/+1Thanks!!
      • onwardknave, on 08/03/2008, -5/+10So voting with my head will get me someone who supports the Patriot Act and retroactive immunity for the telecoms? Obama is better than McCain, but far from ideal. I think a lot of Obama's support comes from people stuck in the two-party system mentality, and MSM's unwillingness to cover anyone else.
      • stagmire, on 08/03/2008, -4/+5Or maybe he's a realist who recognizes that a vote for Bob Barr is a wasted vote.
      • TKS123, on 08/03/2008, -5/+2voting with your head? what? huh? You are beyond stupid!

        Obama is a Socialist PIG! McCain is no vote either but Obama?!!! You DESERVE a Socialist for your stupidy!
    • akchrs, on 08/03/2008, -28/+6Here's another lifelong Republican (me, at 47 years of age this November) voting for Sen. McCain.
      • Wartyboskfapped, on 08/03/2008, -1/+7Hey, Rube!
      • haydesigner, on 08/03/2008, -1/+14Why would either of you be proud of being a "lifelong" anything?? I have much more respect for someone who votes for the *best* candidate versus someone who votes for someone merely because they won their primary.

        (This goes for Repubs, Dem, Greens, etc)
      • wukillabee, on 08/03/2008, -7/+8old troll is old
      • twiztidsinz, on 08/03/2008, -9/+3I bet you spent all day coming up with that comment wukillabee...
        It's a shame someone else had said it over an hour before you.
        Though it was still retarded when he said it.
      • bubba9999, on 08/03/2008, -1/+6Cause things are going so great, right?
      • Burrito, on 08/03/2008, -0/+3Then you'll appreciate this one; "Are you better off now than you were 8 years ago?" Go ahead, lie and then tell me why you're voting for McCain.
    • Barackalypse, on 08/03/2008, -22/+10What a hollow endorsement, you could have at least attempted to rationalize that decision. My guess is that you disagree with his voting record on FISA, the Patriot Act, Iraq war funding without troop withdrawal date, and his co-sponsorship of a bill creating a national fingerprint registry for workers in the mortgage and real estate fields? In other words, most of the major positions he has taken. Yet you're voting for him anyway.
    • 3chansen, on 08/03/2008, -7/+14It's more painful listening to McCain speak than listening to Bush...at least bush is funny:
      "You're working hard to put food on your family."
      I hate to admit but Obama is a much better candidate than McCain. It makes me sad Al Gore isn't running this year, he deserves another go! : [ And honestly, ANY of the other GOP nominees would have been more electable than McCain.

      Anyone ever hear of the bumper sticker, "Don't blame me, I didn't vote!"
    • iizh, on 08/03/2008, -9/+4No one cares.
    • Ebonsteel, on 08/03/2008, -0/+3Thanks for looking past tire party labels and seeing which man is the better candidate, tcbishop. Kudos to you.
    • JettaMan, on 08/03/2008, -1/+4When are we going to see some legitimate Obama stories on Digg? This seems like one big propaganda commercial for the weak-minded.
    • pukedukem, on 08/03/2008, -1/+2Bow your head, because Obama is gonna do the cuttin.
    • SyzygyMan, on 08/03/2008, -0/+4The constant lies and distortions coming out of the GOP (and McCain's mouth) have cinched the deal for me.

      I'm so sick of this *****. If the sheeple of this country elect McCain, we deserve exactly what we get.

      I've always considered myself a "fiscal conservative" and have either voted Republican or not voted for the entirety of my adult life. No more.

      GOBAMA.

    • Fragger404, on 08/04/2008, -0/+1SyzygyMan,

      How can you be a "fiscal conservative" AND support someone who wants to tax the oil companies, take that money, then give it to the people as an "energy rebate"? Isn't that pretty much against everything you believe if you are what you say? It really doesn't get much more socialist than that.

      Personally I'm not thrilled with either candidate, but it's hard to vote for someone who says he is going to drastically raise your taxes.
      • StupotAce, on 08/04/2008, -0/+1Being a fiscal conservative means that you don't take a lot of taxes and you don't have your government spending a bunch of money. Bush has been the most unresponsible president in terms of finances by spending as much money as he could and giving tax breaks. Any fiscal conservative has the right to be very upset with the GOP right now.
      • wojtyk, on 08/26/2008, -0/+0>> Any fiscal conservative has the right to be very upset with the GOP right now.
        Why? I don't judge parties, I judge people. Bush is a big spender and fiscally irresponsible.
        Obama looks to be the same to me (he has several HUNDRED billion in proposed spending chalked up already)
        I don't know where party distinctions factor in here...
  • tcbishop12, on 08/01/2008, -11/+83I’m pretty comfortable, at this point, describing John McCain as the single most ridiculous major party presidential nominee of the modern political era. The McCain campaign is so spectacularly inane, so "bought and paid for by special interests" -- it’s hard to watch it without feeling insulted.
    • allowners, on 08/02/2008, -5/+1He seems no worse than Bush to me.
      • Kanten, on 08/03/2008, -1/+8And that's a good sign?
      • JoeVet, on 08/03/2008, -0/+4Bush has armies of people to cover up his many gaffes. McCain's campaign people are actually contributing to the juvenile behavior.
      • allowners, on 08/03/2008, -0/+1@Kanten, you're putting words in my mouth, I said no such thing. I was making the point that Bush is equally ridiculous.
    • richirwin, on 08/02/2008, -2/+21McCain's ads are (a) ridiculous, (b) childish, and (c) infantile.

      I honestly expect him to come out and call Obama a stinky doo-doo head.
      • rz8472, on 08/03/2008, -2/+9That would be assuming that McCain is as mature as a 5-year old. I think you're stretching it.
    • mikelieman, on 08/03/2008, -2/+3They all know the outcome. The Fix Is In.
    • haydesigner, on 08/03/2008, -1/+1Bob Dole?
  • ramiro, on 08/01/2008, -67/+14BURIED: For being fake and for being leftist brainwashing propaganda.
    • Wakkyweed, on 08/03/2008, -13/+25BURIED: For being stupid and for being reactionary brainwashed *****.
    • twiztidsinz, on 08/03/2008, -8/+9Facts that go against the Republican thinking: Lies.
      Lies that fit the Republican train of thought: Absolute truth.
    • samkline, on 08/03/2008, -5/+4I bet you watch Fox News, am I right?
  • macweirdo42, on 08/01/2008, -21/+47Hey, eight years ago, I would've voted for McCain over virtually any Democrat - diehard liberal that I am, I still think the Democrats are idiots, and McCain seemed to have a good head on his shoulders (and no, despite hating Democrats, I will not join the Republicans - whereas the Democrats are stupid, the Republicans are just downright evil - this is the problem with a two-party system - it creates a false dichotomy, leaving the impression that if one side is bad, the other must be good). Now though, I just don't know - he's been acting kinda nutty lately, and his attempts to woo the Neocons don't sit too well with me.
    • samimnot, on 08/03/2008, -2/+4I agree ;-) I liked the "Maverick" in 2000, also...he's just not the same man, any longer.
    • mattb4rd, on 08/03/2008, -5/+1I almost dugg this then you had to throw in the N word; Neocons. You're spot on with the rest I think. It is a damn shame that in the most powerful nation on the planet, our vote for president is cast not for the candidate we would like to select, but for the candidate we dislike more. What a dildonic way we have of electing the leader of the free world.
    • counterplex, on 08/03/2008, -0/+3Dugg for the explanation of the false dichotomy created by the two-party system. The least we should do to mitigate the negative effects of the two-party system is to switch to a better election mechanism that could afford independents and/or alternative parties better exposure based on their views. I'm thinking of preferential voting or any other means where people are able to be idealistic first and pragmatic second i.e. where people have the opportunity to vote _for_ someone first and then vote _against_ the candidates they don't like instead of always having to vote against other candidates.

      A prime example of this "voting against other candidates" mentality is Ralph Nader. While I'm not a fan, everyone believes that a vote for Nader would be a vote against the Dems which, in the current system, is certainly true. However, in a preferential vote people could vote for Nader as a 1st preference and e.g. Obama as a 2nd preference such that if Nader didn't get enough 1st preference votes to remain in the election your vote would automatically switch to Obama.

      I probably didn't explain all this with much coherence but feel free to look up alternative voting techniques on wikipedia or google.
  • nontoxyc, on 08/01/2008, -49/+6Wow, a Republican is voting for Obama. That is exactly what I've been saying for the last month (ever since Obama's vote on the FISA amendment). Obama's core support is the right-wing Bush neo-cons. That's what's encouraging Barak Obama to ratchet up his support of the Iraq occupation, to vow to Surge troops into Afghanistan, and to repeatedly threaten to bomb, blockade, nuke, and otherwise attack Iran.

    As a Democrat who voted for Al Gore and John Kerry, I can tell you why I am NOT going to vote for Barak Obama. Gore and Kerry were men of character who sincerely wanted to do what was right for America. Obama seems to be willing to say and do whatever it takes to get elected. He has no core values for which he stands. John McCain is a forgetful old ***** who loves his country. Barack Obama is a self-obsessed suit who loves himself. I'll take John McCain thanks.
    • Suneet67, on 08/02/2008, -4/+21You must have an IQ less than 85.
      • nontoxyc, on 08/03/2008, -13/+3yes, lots of people with an IQ of 85 have a degree from UC davis in physics.
      • JigoroKano, on 08/03/2008, -1/+6Ok Mr. UC Davis Physics Major...

        If Newton's 2nd law was a third order ODE, what would be the most consequential change in the physical theory.
      • andersan, on 08/03/2008, -1/+2You orally pleasured your professors. That's how you have a degree from UC davis with an IQ of less than 85.
    • woofers07, on 08/03/2008, -3/+7You and Zell Miller should hang out, seeing as how you're both "democrats" and all.
    • Barackalypse, on 08/03/2008, -17/+2That's not quite true, Obama has one core value he hasn't yet sold out: his belief in government as your master.
    • tjmb9, on 08/03/2008, -4/+8No one gives a ***** what college your graduated from when you say things that are so obviously retarded. My guess would be that the author of the article ISN'T a neo-con, since he states McCain's relationship with Rove as one reason for his switch to Obama. Also, are you actually making an argument that Obama is willing to say whatever it takes to get elected, but McCain isn't? Have you listened to anything he has said this election season at all? Seriously, all of your attacks on Obama in your post are WAY more accurate when you change Obama's name to McCain's.

      Nice mohawk, it totally makes you look cool and not at all like a complete douchebag.
      • nontoxyc, on 08/03/2008, -1/+1LEAAAAVE OBAMA ALOOOONE! wow i just looked at your icon and i can't freaking believe i actually felt insulted by the comment you made about my appearance--i just feel sorry for you after looking at your picture. You look like george foreman's down's syndrome son. You would be lucky to be as handsome intelligent charming witty and politically insightful as I am.
      • tjmb9, on 08/03/2008, -0/+1"You're a smeeeeee, smeeeeee-heeeeeee"
    • flashback99, on 08/03/2008, -3/+2"Obama's core support is the right-wing Bush neo-cons."

      troll harder *****
    • stagmire, on 08/03/2008, -0/+1Obama leads in all the major swing states except MO. He can lose a few blue state idiots like you and win those states by comfortable margins. The only way to pull this thing off is to win PA, OH, and hopefully FL, which he increasingly looks likely to do.
    • Dalrek, on 08/03/2008, -0/+1You do know Obama has been in favor of putting troops into Afgahnistan from the start, right? Everyone should know that; it's been no secret.
  • RhOrdway, on 08/01/2008, -14/+35"Competence and integrity have no ideology. Obama in '08."
    • Barackalypse, on 08/03/2008, -13/+15I was going to digg you up for sarcasm, but then I realized you were probably serious. I don't know how you can say Obama has any integrity left, given he voted for FISA with telco immunity intact (despite saying he would fight it), given he's voted for all the Iraq war funding bills without troop withdrawal dates, given he's now willing to compromise on off-shore drilling. Does the man have any positions his voting record doesn't contradict?
      • mikelieman, on 08/03/2008, -0/+5He wouldn't have been invited to the game if it wasn't known that he was going to play ball.
      • blitz718, on 08/03/2008, -2/+5Jefferson was a pragmatist and compromiser, he went down as one of the top Presidents as per many historians
      • Barackalypse, on 08/03/2008, -9/+3When did Jefferson ever compromise his belief in limited government and the Constitution? Also, in the case of Obama it isn't a compromise when you sell out your position for nothing in return (like he did with FISA, what did he get out of that in return?). The off-shore drilling is an example of a compromise though, where Obama caves on allowing drilling in exchange for all kinds of federal money for alternative energy schemes.
      • cquinnd, on 08/04/2008, -0/+1"When did Jefferson ever compromise his belief in limited government and the Constitution? "

        Authorrizing the Lousiana Purchase.
      • ctkatz, on 08/04/2008, -0/+1jefferson also owned slaves even though he was against the practice and wanted it made illegal in the constitution.

        politicians compromising their beliefs to score political points is nothing new.
    • msheidi, on 08/03/2008, -5/+7Obama is incompetent and has no integrity as well.
    • bsmang, on 08/03/2008, -4/+3Right on. I thought Obama was one of the good guys way back when he was just getting into the race and despite only one little hiccup along the way (FISA vote) which I can understand (threw a vote where he couldn't affect the outcome anyway because he needs all the votes he can get, even from the less bright bulbs out there), he's still very much the good guy.
  • whitross1, on 08/02/2008, -12/+26He's definitely got my vote.
    • mattb4rd, on 08/03/2008, -2/+3Why? (just curious)
      • Ebonsteel, on 08/03/2008, -1/+5I honestly believe that any thinking individual with their own opinions, who isn't clinging to someone else's party-line ideology, will NEVER find a candidate who agrees with them 100% of the time.

        Obama isn't my ideal candidate, but he is certainly better than the other option of four more years of the same failed policies wrapped in an older package.
      • mattb4rd, on 08/04/2008, -0/+0I so want to agree with you. I just can't get past the fact that our government has failed us on so many fronts; War, Taxes, Social Security, Medicare, and failure to be even close to energy independence. Obama wants more government involvement in our daily lives. With their track record, I'd prefer that they give back to the private sector some of the things that have allowed our government to be so bloated and power-hungry.

        Why should I believe that he's the one that can make it happen when so many have failed before him? He simply doesn't have the voting record nor the resume to get me to buy into "the dream". Although, as I've already admitted, I want to.
  • dmwhipp, on 08/02/2008, -13/+53I'm a former Republican who will be voting for Obama this fall. How do I feel about McCain? I built a little website that explains it pretty clearly:

    http://www.StopThinkVote.com

    Pass it on if you think it's worthwhile.
    • Suneet67, on 08/02/2008, -2/+15nice website... good to know that some people choose to use facts to defend their opinions instead of chastising and negative criticism.
    • tcbishop12, on 08/03/2008, -2/+15Great job. Had no idea that was your site - have been there often. Solid work, and thanks.
    • msheidi, on 08/03/2008, -5/+2neither candidate is competent.
    • Ebonsteel, on 08/03/2008, -1/+4Bookmarked. Nice work, dmw. :)
    • msposato, on 08/03/2008, -0/+3Thanks to all for the compliments on the site. The photo is my two boys, 9 and 11 years old. The thought of McCain in charge while they are growing up is what prompted me to create the site. Thanks again.
      DMW
    • dmwhipp, on 08/03/2008, -0/+3I posted my thanks from my husband's laptop forgetting to sign him out and sign in under my own name. Sorry about that and thanks again. DMW
  • fadeout, on 08/02/2008, -11/+37I would have voted for McCain in 2000 or 2004, no way in hell now.

    I doubt the McCain of 2000 would even recognize the McCain of 2008.

    His selling out to Bush's tax cuts for the rich and to Jerry Falwell were the nails in his moral coffin.
  • duckley, on 08/02/2008, -9/+23Demographics SHOW that McCain = Isolation !

    Voting by States map:
    http://www.pollster.com/polls/2008president/

    Population Density map:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:USA-2000-popula ...

    ////////////////
    These maps show clearly that, in general, the more ISOLATED you are, the MORE likely you are to vote for McCain !

    • Rotzooi, on 08/02/2008, -3/+17Isolated from REALITY.
      there, fixed it for you.
    • andrew1338, on 08/03/2008, -1/+5As much as I would like to think this is true, correlation != causation. And thats a pretty weak correlation anyways. Just look at Tennessee/Kentucky vs. Illinois. they all have roughly equivalent density, and yet the votes turned out wildly different.

      And whats the deal with NM?
      • duckley, on 08/03/2008, -0/+1That's why I say, "in general".

        There are exceptions in a number of areas.

        But, in general, the more widely dispersed the population, the more Red you are.
    • shakbhaji, on 08/03/2008, -1/+2http://www.hulu.com/watch/28510/the-daily-show-wit ...

      The guest wrote a book that comes to pretty much the same conclusion.
  • Rotzooi, on 08/02/2008, -15/+38I'll get the Obama name-calling out of the way by copying the Digg search results from the last few days for
    everything prefixed by
    "Obama is":

    - game, but ESPN is not
    - Rocking The Vote
    - no JFK
    - a hockey puck
    - the Messiah
    - a racist
    - scared of me
    - Osama
    - preparing the world for the anti-christ
    - not going to Heaven
    - an elitist
    - African
    - American
    - a muslim
    - not a muslim
    - a muslem
    - Moses
    - unreachable with the love of God through Christ
    - on our dollar bills
    - an anti-Semite
    - son of a top Hamas leader
    - the number 1 hater of America
    - just dumb
    - the Democrats' Jesus
    - Neo from the Matrix
    - the POTUS
    - your new bicycle dot com
    - Paris Hilton
    - Britney Spears
    - a terrorist
    - playing the race card
    - the antichrist
    - a white hating christian
    - proponent of the new world order
    - white
    - almost white
    - not black
    - black enough
    - a woefully unbiblical name
    - not an american citizen
    - too thin
    - father of two black kids OMG WTF!!!!!
    - the inventor of global warming
    - a socialist [not a socially-democratic capitalist, but the communist kind]
    - presumptuous
    - uppity (literally)
    - Hitler
    - Atilla, Hannibal, Ghenghis, Mohammad, Hitler, Napoleon all in one extreme leftish Liberal package
    - against the troops
    - snobbish
    - only psychological
    - opposed to slavery
    - Uh-Bahma
    - hubristic
    - good
    - my homeboy
    - just a dumb blonde
    - European (GAY!)
    - something else
    - the Platonic philosopher king we’ve been looking for
    - laughable
    - too hard even for the LORD to convert
    - showing he wishes to be judged by his skin
    - vacuous
    - frivolous
    - a moron
    - a politician
    - loopy
    - superficial
    - "Hollywood"
    - an amateur lesbian pornographer
    - a radical Muslim who will not recite the Pledge of Allegiance
    - for America
    - a little princess
    - just another liberal who wants to destroy America
    • tm13lke, on 08/03/2008, -3/+12dugg for effort. impressive
    • samimnot, on 08/03/2008, -3/+3Some true, some false....Some funny, some just outright scary.

      But either way ;-) it was a clever post.
    • slifty, on 08/03/2008, -2/+8I always knew he was a hockey puck... Glad to hear someone agrees with me.
    • ObamAmerican48, on 08/04/2008, -0/+1NICE
  • BotchaMcCoola, on 08/02/2008, -12/+5Nice try but hardly convincing. Like the Iraq War but not the recession and oil prices? Doesn’t make much sense.

    Fight Terrorism – Not Third World Moslem Paramilitaries
    • andrew1338, on 08/03/2008, -0/+3why don't we just expand that to any religion mixed with military and/or politics. Its not just the Muslims who are ***** everyone over.
    • BotchaMcCoola, on 08/04/2008, -0/+1So I am way off then? What about the economy after the first Vietnam War?
  • nickbr00tality, on 08/03/2008, -9/+12Obamacon sounds like a robot or something. I dunno...or like an Obama convention?
    • r00fus, on 08/03/2008, -0/+2Right... it should be Obamacan like Obama(Republi)can.
    • mistykasumi, on 08/04/2008, -0/+0I actually didn't even think of that...I just thought "Oh, Obamacon(servative)".
  • jpete71chevmal, on 08/03/2008, -16/+4Anyone who is voting for Obama, please explain to me how Senate Bill 2433 is going to help me. Because it sounds like a massive new tax to me.

    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:1:./tem ...
    • halogenik, on 08/03/2008, -2/+6Please resubmit your search
      Search results are only retained for a limited amount of time.Your search results have either been deleted, or the file has been updated with new information.
    • hierophantus, on 08/03/2008, -1/+8Are you talking about the Global Poverty Act of 2007?

      If so, here's the full text: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill= ...
    • hierophantus, on 08/03/2008, -3/+8Okay, I've read it now. There is no tax in it at all. Where are you getting that?

      The bill would require the President to develop a strategy to reduce global poverty. In its current form, according to the source I linked above, here are the Components the strategy "should include:"

      (1) Continued investment or involvement in existing United States initiatives related to international poverty reduction, such as the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003 (22 U.S.C. 7601 et seq.), the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003 (22 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.), and trade preference programs for developing countries, such as the African Growth and Opportunity Act (19 U.S.C. 3701 et seq.).

      (2) Improving the effectiveness of development assistance and making available additional overall United States assistance levels as appropriate.

      (3) Enhancing and expanding debt relief as appropriate.

      (4) Leveraging United States trade policy where possible to enhance economic development prospects for developing countries.

      (5) Coordinating efforts and working in cooperation with developed and developing countries, international organizations, and international financial institutions.

      (6) Mobilizing and leveraging the participation of businesses, United States and international nongovernmental organizations, civil society, and public-private partnerships.

      (7) Coordinating the goal of poverty reduction [Struck out->]with other development goals, such as combating the spread of preventable diseases such as HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria, increasing access to potable water and basic sanitation, reducing hunger and malnutrition, and improving access to and quality of education at all levels regardless of gender.

      (8) Integrating principles of sustainable development and entrepreneurship into policies and programs.

      As for how this would help you, here is a quote from the Congressional findings that precede the Requirements:

      "We fight against poverty because hope is an answer to terror. We fight against poverty because opportunity is a fundamental right to human dignity. We fight against poverty because faith requires it and conscience demands it. We fight against poverty with a growing conviction that major progress is within our reach."

      In case you're wondering, that's a quote from Bush a few months after 9/11.
      • twiztidsinz, on 08/03/2008, -0/+6Oh yeah?
        Well... what about Senate Bill 2197? or House Bill 3142? Huh??
        I don't have any clue what they are cuz I didn't bother to read them but I'm gonna post them here anyway because I'm sure they're not good and make Obama look bad!!!

        /sarcasm
      • jpete71chevmal, on 08/03/2008, -1/+1Funny, no mention in the bill of how all that stuff would be paid for. Why is that? It's not that they didn't want you to know that .7% of the US GDP would be used to cover the costs is it?

        How much aid has already poured into Africa with no effect? The government takes most of the money and the people who need it see none. Good idea, pour more money down the rat hole.

        And why is it America's responsibility to erase debts in Africa? It's not like we don't have $30 trillion in debt ourselves. Who will erase our debt? Do we not have starving people in America?

        "(4) Leveraging United States trade policy where possible to enhance economic development prospects for developing countries." sounds a lot like "If you play by OUR rules, you get "economic development" (in the form of outsourced US jobs) or you can continue to live in a mud hut and starve"

        Sounds altruistic to me. /sarcasm.

        Name one good intention that Congress hasn't managed to twist into a fiasco.

        Stop messing around in other people's countries. This is more foreign intervention. And, as we've seen, that never ends well. I don't care how big a smile you put on it.
      • hierophantus, on 08/03/2008, -0/+3I'm pretty sure that the way we will pay for the President--and, more realistically, the President's staff--to develop a strategy is to pay them their usual salary. In that all the bill does is to push the President to create a strategy, that's all there is to fund in the bill. Now, once the President creates a strategy, then you look at how to fund what he comes up with.

        Again, the numbered items I pasted above are factors and ideas the bill asks the President to consider in developing a strategy. It would be up to the President to flesh out the actual strategy.
      • jpete71chevmal, on 08/06/2008, -0/+1Tell me again why I care about poverty around the world? I wasn't aware we lived in Utopia where hunger and want have been eliminated from the USA. Tell me how this upholds the oath of office to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution" of the USA? We shouldn't be trying to figure out how to spend more money, we should be CUTTING things like this, and a whole lot more.
    • andrew1338, on 08/03/2008, -3/+3So, 560 billion over 6 years (~93B/yr.) spent to make the middle east and the rest of the world despise us is better than 845 billion over 13 years (~65B/yr.) to make the world realize we're not all warmongering corporate puppets?
      • brad3378, on 08/03/2008, -0/+2$845 Billion divided by
        117 Million US taxpayers equals
        $7222 per taxpayer.

  • basickler, on 08/03/2008, -11/+12Honestly I am happy people can finally see the republican party for the evil corporate scumbags that they are. And I understand that many of you like what the republican party says they represent (small government, etc...) But I have one comment I'd like that make to the republicans that just now see that now is the time to ditch their blind party loyalty.

    If you voted for Bush in 2004 you are a tool. Period. I know this negates a large portion of our population to being idiots but that's really not that big of a surprise if you've been spent a bit of time traveling around America lately. And this may be counter productive but if you voted for Bush in 2004 I'm gonna consider you decision making ability so flawed or irrationally biased that you shouldn't be voting, or making any major decisions period.

    "There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." -Bush Jr.
    • SatoriSeeker, on 08/03/2008, -1/+4Diebold voted for Bush both times around.
    • momomathew, on 08/03/2008, -1/+0I voted for Bush in 2004 (Gore in 2000). Not blindly, but I considered the other candidate. A lifelong political work history, without any important legislation. Another concern (from a veteran), when he was attacked by the Swift Boat ads, he didn't respond. Kerry never opened his military records for review. Bush did and was chastised and took the heat.
      I never vote along party lines, and I still haven't decided who I am going to vote for. What I would really like to see is split Congress (whichever way it turns out), that would force communication and compromise.
  • jerrycurley, on 08/03/2008, -27/+5Seriously...I don't ***** get it...why DO obama voters think that ANY?ONE gives a ***** about their reasons for voting for him?

    Guess what? For every one of you, there are Democrats who are NOT voting for Obama. The difference is, they are well adjusted enough to know that NO ONE GIVES A ***** WHY!!
    • hierophantus, on 08/03/2008, -2/+7Your reasoning for why you don't want to read such opinions, on the other hand, is very important to me.
  • EatingPaste, on 08/03/2008, -18/+5Who gives a ***** we're stuck with a turd-sandwich and a giant douche as usual...
  • wexmajor, on 08/03/2008, -5/+13I think the article was supposed to come across as hopeful for unity but I find it rather depressing. He feels forced to vote for a candidate he disagrees with because the candidate that was supposed to represent him and his interests is completely laughable. The system has clearly failed.
    • samimnot, on 08/03/2008, -0/+1Same impression, I came away with....lol
    • mattb4rd, on 08/03/2008, -0/+0/cheer!
    • r00fus, on 08/03/2008, -0/+1We need to move away from plurality voting!
      Instant Runoff or Condorcet FTW
  • akchrs, on 08/03/2008, -18/+6So he's blaming John McCain for the failed leadership in the Liberal/Democrat majority congress?
    • hierophantus, on 08/03/2008, -3/+12For once, why not read the article before churning out your predetermined party-line crap?
      • akchrs, on 08/03/2008, -11/+3I did. It's just someones opinion who choses to blame others, like a typical Democrat, for his problems.
    • flashback99, on 08/03/2008, -2/+3RTFA you stupid *****.
  • benroy, on 08/03/2008, -7/+10Wait a minute, Is this guy a...flip-flopper?
    BTW, what a stupid phrase. But for the life of me, it's been so drilled into my skull that I can't think of a better one.
  • lepster10101, on 08/03/2008, -8/+14I can't wait for the presidential debates. I'm guessing there will be a lot more republicans voting Obama after that.
    • akchrs, on 08/03/2008, -13/+3Actually their won't be. You need to worry about the people who voted for Clinton that the Obama camp trashed. After all didn't Hilary lead in the popular vote.
      • purzzzell, on 08/03/2008, -2/+8maybe if you leave out caucus states...it was a claim she made, it wasn't particularly true - they were neck and neck in the primary states and he ROMPED her in caucuses.
    • samimnot, on 08/03/2008, -0/+3Just a thought, about the upcoming debates:
      Everyone expects Obama to really make McCain look incompetent. So much so...that if McCain has just a "decent" showing...it will look like a land slide win, for him.
    • iizh, on 08/03/2008, -2/+3Yeah, because Obama performed so brilliantly against Clinton.
      • carpespasm, on 08/03/2008, -1/+5Were we watching different debates? I thought he pretty continually wiped the floor with her on his reasoning for his positions even if they shared a lot of the same views. With McCain vs Obama in a debate with both of them having to think on their feet I can't see how McCain can hold up. Clinton at least had a history in writing.
      • dagamer34, on 08/03/2008, -0/+2Eh, when you are arguing with a person that holds virtually the same positions as you, after having 10 debates, the next 12 were just pointless rehashes.

        But I assure you that the real presidential debates we will see will pretty much cut the crud from the attacks going on today from both sides and focus purely on policy. And then I think it's pretty much a no brainer for people on the fence. You've have a clear choice. I don't think you can swing one way or the other quite so easily in this election.
  • StanleyKoolPrik, on 08/03/2008, -15/+9Good lord. When will this Obama ***** end.
    • Barackalypse, on 08/03/2008, -8/+7November 2008, or perhaps January 2013, but worst case its January 2017.
    • flashback99, on 08/03/2008, -4/+7Now if more of you neocons would resort to praying instead of voting, we might be able to harness your collective ignorance to save America.
      • bsmang, on 08/03/2008, -1/+4OMG what a great comment.
      • IIAmusedII, on 08/03/2008, -1/+3Ditto. I just laughed so hard I spat coffee on the screen. Hope you're happy now.
      • Ebonsteel, on 08/03/2008, -1/+1I just emailed that to a couple of friends of mine, actually (with you credited, of course). :)
  • artwork, on 08/03/2008, -5/+10Because the alternative is McCain?
  • mbraynard, on 08/03/2008, -22/+9He's actually a registered Democrat or Unaffiliated.

    I have access to his voter record. There are several Robert Caron's in Massachussetts; among those who are single, none of them are Republicans. In the state of MA, you register with your party and must be registered with the party to participate in the primary.

    Unfortunately, I can't provide more info than this because we don't have more info on Caron. My best guess is that he's an unaffiliated voter and he lives on Percival Street.

    This type of subterfuge is typical and done all the time, mostly be Democrats. Also known as 'seminar callers.'
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seminar_caller

    I believe we have one person on this board claiming to being a Republican but objecting to John McCain's support of tax relief. Yeah, if you are going to try to claim to be a Republican, at least make a credible argument.
    • zerries, on 08/03/2008, -2/+6You have access to his voting record?!?!

      Do people really think people believe them when they write stuff like this? Get a life.
      • mbraynard, on 08/03/2008, -1/+1It's public information. Tell me your name, city of residence, and birthdate, and I'll grab yours as well.

        Funny how so many of yourselves hold yourselves out as experts in politics and public policy and the way the world should run but you lack even a basic grasp of how the world works.
    • SatoriSeeker, on 08/03/2008, -1/+4People change parties to vote in the Primaries - or because they do not like their party anymore.
      • mbraynard, on 08/03/2008, -0/+1Yes, but none of these people have a history of having voted in an R primary. Ever.
  • YodaJones, on 08/03/2008, -16/+9What an idiot. Buried.
    • Ebonsteel, on 08/03/2008, -2/+3Funny, I was just thinking the same exact thing about you!
  • thickape, on 08/03/2008, -13/+10you have been inside the prison for so long that you've forgotten what freedom feels like. Vote third party.
    • SatoriSeeker, on 08/03/2008, -1/+2We've never truly been free anyways..
  • Optiks, on 08/03/2008, -8/+2I notice that left out of the summary is the mention of the reversal of McCain's "previous (and admirable) positions on major issues (the Bush tax cuts, offshore drilling, etc.)" Leaving the reader to assume that Obama has taken the opposite of McCain's tack, and never wavered.

    Has the author been living under a rock?

    Just like every election, both candidates have pandered to their respective bases, and now must court the independents. More so in a time of economic hardship where tough decisions will need to be made in the coming months.

  • macmangb, on 08/03/2008, -15/+15Remember, there's still hope, Ron Paul.
    • bsmang, on 08/03/2008, -1/+2Sorry, RP is a nice guy and all, but had to LOL there.
    • JoeVet, on 08/03/2008, -1/+2I like my freedom of religion, personal privacy, and equal protection under the law too much to vote for that douchbag.
      • stagmire, on 08/03/2008, -2/+4Exactly. All these idiots who think Ron Paul is some noble protector of the Constitution are ignorant of the fact that he wants to roll back constitutional protections in the name of "states' rights." He wants to make it legal for state governments to enforce religion, ban whatever speech they disapprove of, violate the 4th Amendment, and ignore the Equal Protection clause entirely. It's all set forth in his "We The People Act." Ron Paul is an absolutely disgusting human being.
  • wukillabee, on 08/03/2008, -10/+3good thing im not gonna vote
  • btschul, on 08/03/2008, -7/+10There are more than just two choices. Voting for a candidate you don't agree with so that you don't have to vote for one you don't like is stupid. Check out http://www.bobbarr.com
  • Barackalypse, on 08/03/2008, -15/+9Obamacon? Isn't the the term used to describe when Obama has one position that rallies support for him only to totally sell out that position when it comes up for a vote? For example him talking about stripping telcom immunity from FISA, only to vote for it even with immunity, or his talk about ending the Iraq War, but voting for every funding bill that doesn't have troop withdrawal dates in it. The real con happens in November, when we find out how many of you are gullible enough to still vote for him, even though you probably don't agree with most of his major votes this year.
    • samimnot, on 08/03/2008, -1/+2FISA...he voted for it (along with a majority of our politicians, on both sides) only after it was changed. A separate court, now controls how the warrants are issued. The White House having complete over site, was always the main complaint.

      Iraq Funding...these funds "support" our troops with supplies and equipment they need to protect themselves. Has nothing to do with his feelings on "ending" this war.

      I'm not gullible...I simply can not vote for McCain because I consider the man "senile and mentally incompetent" to lead our country, at this stage of his life.
    • uptown, on 08/03/2008, -1/+2The term should have been "Obamacan". Get it ... the first part "Obama" the last part from "Republican".
  • zerries, on 08/03/2008, -11/+4If 30% of the people voted for who they want to win, instead of who they think is going to win, things would be different.
    This man is a hack and a coward, just like everyone else who would ever write an article like this.
    • purzzzell, on 08/03/2008, -3/+5I'm voting for Obama b/c a third party vote is a vote for McCain.
      • zerries, on 08/03/2008, -4/+4If everyone like you, again, voted for who they want and not who they think is going to win, it would not be a vote for McCain. The whole reason why we have this ***** up process is because of that very mind set. Be a ***** human and do what is right, not what your tv tells you.

        And regardless, say you vote for someone else and McCain does win, well then at least you did what is right and what YOU FELT was right.
  • Findeton, on 08/03/2008, -16/+11"Why this Republican is Voting Obama"

    I have another theory. Since Obama voted for FISA, now he is convinced Obama is a "better" fascist candidate than McCain.
  • theskillwithin, on 08/03/2008, -14/+12Obama just makes broad generalizations that would sound good if anyone said them.
    • carpespasm, on 08/03/2008, -5/+4You make broad generalizations that sound good if you haven't researched Obama's actual plans.
    • tcbishop12, on 08/03/2008, -0/+1So if it's just that easy "to make broad generalizations that would sound good if anyone said them", why aren't you the nominee?
  • clickfire, on 08/03/2008, -11/+6The arguments do sound fake.
  • clickfire, on 08/03/2008, -11/+6Honestly, the arguments do sound fake.
    • twiztidsinz, on 08/03/2008, -4/+3Dreams DO come true!
      I was able to bury you TWICE!!!
  • toytoyota, on 08/03/2008, -8/+18McCain won't let gay couples adopt kids from orphanages (or from anywhere). Can we agree that's a good enough reason not to elect him president?
    • worldnick, on 08/03/2008, -10/+3I don't believe gay couple should adopt kids either personally. I grew up without a positive father figure and that gave me less self worth. Imagine the negative self image a young male would have growing up with lesbian parents. He would probably think there was something wrong with him. His mothers would not like men and if he was straight he would have no basis for how to act in a relationship. It would hurt his chances even further when women in his peer group expect him to act similar to how their father's act with their mothers. This child would have a severe disadvantage. I have a special understanding of this. It is important to have role models that set you up for success. However I still don't like McCain.
      • cappiez, on 08/03/2008, -1/+7Umm.. why can't lesbian parents teach their child the rights and wrongs just like a normal couple? And, with gay parents.. they would be able to help just as much, especially if they were the opposite sex than the child. Because they can give 2 points of reference to how a (wo)man wants to be treated...........
      • flashback99, on 08/03/2008, -1/+9"Imagine the negative self image a young male would have growing up with lesbian parents."

        No, I can't.

        "I have a special understanding of this."

        And because of your special understanding you would rather see orphans without parents. Frankly, what a down right stupid way of thinking.
      • carpespasm, on 08/03/2008, -0/+10Imagine the negative self image a young male would have growing up with no parents and only paid caretakers to keep an eye on him until he's booted out at 18. By your logic a single mother can't possibly be fit to raise a male child since there's no positive male influence, doubly so if she's averse to trying to remarry.

        I know for a fact that people raised in a home with homosexual parents can turn out perfectly fine and I've kids who grew up in "normal" families turn out with some weird problems when one of their parents has a fundamental problem with the opposite sex. Not all lesbians are man-haters, they're just not attracted to them, and I'm all but certain that part of the testing that goes into deciding if you're fit to adopt a child is making sure you don't hate 50% of the population.
      • stagmire, on 08/03/2008, -0/+1"I grew up without a positive father figure and that gave me less self worth. "

        Yeah, but imagine if you grew up with two lesbians. That would be totally hot.
      • worldnick, on 08/03/2008, -1/+1I would want to cut my dick off.
    • worldnick, on 08/03/2008, -2/+1Maybe it is better than having no parents at all, but I still disagree about
      1. 'Lesbians are not Man-Haters' --> They Are.
      2. Your child would have 'pointers' no your child would be the guy who is always stuck in 'friend' mode not 'boyfriend' mode.

      I will give you that it might be better than growing up with no parents at all, but it should really be monitored. And a special comment to all you angry lesbians. You should really give men another try. There are good men out there.
  • dlyconservative, on 08/03/2008, -17/+5Let me get this straight. You call yourself a Republican--someone that is supposed to believe in small government, low taxes and free trade--and you're going to vote for the most liberal congressman in the US today? There are so many things wrong with your judgement that I don't know where to begin. Sure, McCain is a moron but throwing your vote into the fire for a self described socialist messiah is the most foolish thing you can do this year. Don't even get my started on the reasons why Obama would destroy the economy let alone the destruction that will be left behind in Iraq when he's done with it.

    As a conservative, Obama scares the hell out of me. He wants to socialize the system to death, hang out government aid to the lazy masses on welfare, tax us to death and run like a coward in Iraq. You are a foolish human being if you put yourself in line with Obama. He's a great speak, sure, but that is not good enough for me.

    Any self respecting Republican would not joke about voting for such a communist let alone get to this point. Vote third party, hell, don't vote at all, but don't vote for Obama. Vote for Bob Barr, vote for Nader, vote for Mikey Mouse; Vote for Obama and kiss your paycheck for the next four years goodbye. Get ready to pay for health care for the masses and the other trillion dollars worth of socialist plans Obama has planned for us. Oh, but you'll be happy right? Because you just hate McCain.
    • samimnot, on 08/03/2008, -2/+5I usually don't debate people that "RANT" like you, but....
      2 points you made ;-) that I just wanted to comment on:

      "Sure, McCain is a moron"
      I disagree...he's unfortunately senile and can't remember things, from one day to the next. And this, is the main reason I can not vote for him.

      "Vote for Obama and kiss your paycheck for the next four years goodbye"
      In case you haven't notice...a lot of people have already lost those paychecks, under the 'Bush Economic Plan'.

      Most of the remaining points you made...are typical Rep/Dem dialog. I choose not to naively think one party can lay claim to being "righteous, responsible, and/or non-corrupt",
    • JoeVet, on 08/03/2008, -0/+4"Republican--someone that is supposed to believe in small government, low taxes and free trade"
      That is a laugh. When was the last time a Republican fought for any of those things once elected? Maybe they fought for low taxes but only for corporations and those making above 500K a year. The largest growth in federal spending has always been directed by the GOP with the present administration leading the pack, right behind the most popular Republican, Reagan.
    • mistykasumi, on 08/04/2008, -0/+0Please don't use political terms if you can't use them correctly.
  • aftern9ne, on 08/03/2008, -8/+3As much as a like that more people are switching to Obama, I don't think this man should be changing his mind based upon McCain's attacks at Obama rather than policy.

    If you can't support a candidate for their policies, perhaps you shouldn't be voting.
    • MrHooper, on 08/03/2008, -4/+1Sorry, but that kind of deception, and lack of integrity is a major issue... and a policy in its own right. We've had 8 years of similar failed policy. If a candidate acts like this... and worse, the people perpetuate the right of a candidate to play such weak-minded games, then that is a true sign of character (both for the candidate and voter). What good is policy without the integrity to back it up? It's meaningless.
  • RWFG, on 08/03/2008, -10/+5Yawn - go ahead and vote for him...he'll still lose.
    • bubba9999, on 08/03/2008, -2/+2Oh yeah? Do you work for Diebold or something?
  • Administrator00, on 08/03/2008, -11/+7A real Republican would know better than to vote for an inexperienced candidate like Obama.

    NOOOOOOOObama
    Vote McCain!!!
    • bubba9999, on 08/03/2008, -3/+4Do you know how much experience the current president had when he was elected to office?
      • Skywise, on 08/03/2008, -1/+6More than Obama...
      • Skerdog, on 08/06/2008, -0/+2Yep. 6 years as governor of Texas which is...hmm...let me think....about 6 years MORE than Obama.
    • SatoriSeeker, on 08/03/2008, -5/+2Are you serious or a troll? This is an honest question.
  • 13373h4X0r, on 08/03/2008, -5/+9I hope a lot of other Republicans vote for Obama, too. It's time to have a president who intelligently weighs the options and makes the best choices, and who is more likely to pursue diplomacy instead of threats and battles, and who is aware of the problems facing the average citizen and has the creativity and drive to do something about those problems. I don't think McCain, and all of the people he would appoint to government bureaus and departments, are likely to be much different from the current administration -- and there are many examples of how the whole administration, and not simply president Bush, has failed the American people. Obama would not only brings intelligence and civility to the office of the president, he would also fill the government with people who are more likely to be qualified and suited to their roles. For example, McCain's Internet and technology adviser is affiliated with the RIAA/MPAA, whereas Obama's adviser is an M.I.T. professor; that indicates a difference in priorities -- with McCain siding with a particular business interest, and Obama siding with experts who want to solve technology problems for the benefit of all (including fair business competition).
    • carpespasm, on 08/03/2008, -4/+2Dayum. The RIAA/MPAA vs MIT prof. does it alone for me. I'd vote against Obama if he were slumming it with such scum. That is a good indicator though.
  • SwampFox82nd, on 08/03/2008, -2/+8Well chillin', were you around on November 22, 1963 there would be a much smaller Republican party! Got a bird's eye view of "politics as usual" first in Cuba, then in Central America ('60-'63). I knew a Republican swamp-crawler in Panama setting-up the SOA (School Of Americas), the first graduate? Manual Noriega! He also set-up Los Contras in Columbia, South America. He also was the dude who was in Dallas, TX, that faithful day when Kennedy was taken-out. A clue: CIA financed both General Baptista AND Fidel Castro. But when he worked for our government at that time. There has been a Bush there in the whitehouse since Truman. Please don't take my word, do the homework --- Bush means death. All the way back to WW-II, when he was a a Navy pilot in the Pacific. You are owed the truth by our elected officials. Everything they've done has been to get us to Iraq, and keep them there. Bush is busily taking our hard-earn cash right out of your hands, and you look the other way. You want peace, replace those in "the club" now. Bush will get us into Iran on the very same bull-squat that got us into Vietnam and Iraq. This is the truth...
    • barbiesnow, on 08/03/2008, -2/+3I find it interesting that most of the McCain references are still back to the sixties.. Dr. No..(.1962 movie....captured war hero in viet Nam..this guy is not mentally or physically qualified as we all know to take on stressful job of POTUS.
  • 13373h4X0r, on 08/03/2008, -8/+8I hope a lot of other Republicans vote for Obama, too.

    It's time to have a president who intelligently weighs the options and makes the best choices, and who is more likely to pursue diplomacy instead of threats and battles, and who is aware of the problems facing the average citizen and has the creativity and drive to do something about those problems.

    I don't think McCain, and all of the people he would appoint to government bureaus and departments, are likely to be much different from the current administration -- and there are many examples of how the whole administration, and not simply president Bush, has failed the American people.

    Obama would not only bring intelligence and civility to the office of the president, but he would also fill the government with people who are more likely to be qualified and suited to their roles. For example, McCain's Internet and technology adviser is affiliated with the RIAA/MPAA, whereas Obama's adviser is an M.I.T. professor -- and that illustrates a difference in priorities -- with McCain siding with a particular business interest, and Obama siding with experts who want to solve technology problems for the benefit of all (including fair business competition).

    I hope a lot of self-described "Republicans" do similar soul-searching and realize that it isn't about party affiliation, but about choosing the best people for the jobs. For example, here in California, Arnold Schwarzenegger is doing a good job as governor; he seems genuinely interested in simply solving problems, seeking support from people who might typically identify themselves as Democrats.

    It would be nice if more people in government abandon their "party affiliation". That would put more pressure on voters to actually consider all of the issues. There's no reason why economic policy, foreign policy, social policy, energy policy, natural resource policy, etc, should all fall in to two convenient, mutually-opposed bins: "Democrat" and "Republican". That's silly! Maybe historically it was easier to polarize things like that, but I don't think that's the case anymore.

    Anyhow, I think Obama is a much better option for president than John McCain, but even more important to me is that Obama's appointments to the bureaus and departments of government are likely to be much better than McCain's appointments; the day-to-day impact of those choices is significant. Bush cronies in FEMA, FCC, DHS, CIA, FBI, NSA, TSA, DOD, DOE, EPA, etc, explains a lot of the bad things that happened over the past 8 years. Would the Iraq war have happened if the director of the CIA had more integrity? (Sure, Bush bears personal responsibility for processing the information he received and for making the decision to initiate a war, but having better department chiefs would have discouraged dishonest actions.) The response to Katrina would have been better. The one million people on the "terror watch list" is a DHS blunder. The NSA complicity in, or request for, more thorough domestic surveillance, is a reflection of the attitude of its agency leadership. The FCC fines for "wardrobe malfunctions", in response to a tiny vocal complaint factory, are a reflection of FCC leadership failures. Etc.

    So, think not only of Obama vs. McCain, but also of their respective appointments to government. You might believe that McCain might be an OK guy, but consider the likelihood that McCain's appointments to government will be the same kinds of people who have been running the show for the past eight years.
    • honeybrass, on 08/03/2008, -0/+0I can't be ***** to read this, soooo long! remember we re part of the now generation, just make your point and go.
    • 140Suffolk, on 08/03/2008, -1/+1A B O --- anybody but obama
  • Pebcak, on 08/03/2008, -3/+15As a lifelong Republican I will be voting for the Libertarian candidate, Bob Barr. Whether we have Obama or McCain, either way we will get bigger government, more spending, and less liberties. You know it's true.
    • djogwe24, on 08/03/2008, -3/+3I still don't understand the point of voting for a candidate that has no shot of winning the election. All that does is take away votes from a viable candidate, be it Obama or McCain. More importantly, those wasted votes could make the difference in the election but instead contribute just as much as nonvoters. You're better off not voting at all.
      • logicet, on 08/03/2008, -0/+3So, you have the devil himself, or a demon-spawn. Who do you vote for, since Jesus is not a viable candidate?

        The goal is to make a third or (gasp!) fourth party actually viable by breaking the 10% threshold to qualify for fed funds. The two parties will just change the rules if that happens though.
      • djogwe24, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1And this has happened ONCE (Teddy Roosevelt) in the history of the election process. Regardless of what the third party vote stands for, it is still most likely going to be irrelevant and cause a less accurate election in the grand scheme of things.
  • TJATL, on 08/03/2008, -3/+9Why would you vote for someone if you don't agree with 70% of the stance on issues? Either you're lying about being a republican or you are a complete tool. Most sane people would vote third party rather then vote for someone that goes completely against their values. This is like having sex with a he/she because your girlfriend pissed you off. Just go find another girlfriend.
    • solidcube, on 08/03/2008, -2/+6But perhaps the other 30% are much more important to this person. If he's a realist, that's how it would be. Most voting issues on either side of the fence are strawmen which are pimped by the media in a way designed to distract us from the REAL issues.

      Terry Schiavo? Puhleeeeeez.
  • AmericaTheGreat, on 08/03/2008, -7/+2Traitor scum.
    • solidcube, on 08/03/2008, -2/+2Antiamerican authoritarian nazi cocksucking son of a bitch.
    • Ebonsteel, on 08/03/2008, -1/+2You'll have to be more specific; almost all Republicans are Traitor Scum.
  • solidcube, on 08/03/2008, -4/+4What I'm hearing from conservatives amazes me. MANY of them have defected from the GOP, at the very least they say they aren't voting at all or are voting for some spoiler or write-in candidate.

    The situation must be bad indeed for these rigid, narrow-minded authoritarians to realize the score.
  • richirwin, on 08/03/2008, -2/+6McCain's reputation is that he is a "maverick" and I hear republicans say "He's too liberal." But...

    During the Bush administration, Congressional Quarterly gave McCain a 90% score for "party unity," making him an even more reliable GOP water-carrier than fellow Arizonan John Kyl, the #2 ranking Republican in the Senate. The Washington Post similarly gave him a score of 88.3%, tying him with South Carolina's Lindsey Graham ahead of 29 other Senate Republicans.

    According to CQ, Senator John McCain has voted with President Bush 100% of the time in 2008 and 95% of the time in 2007:

    100%? 95% 90%? 88.3%?

    Does this sounds like a "maverick" or just another republican?

    McCain also says that he will not try to distance himself from Bush - "I will not try to separate myself from him."

    So it sounds like he doesn't mind being joined at this hip with George W. Bush. Yet, when referred to as "The Third Bush Term" McCain bristles and attempts to invoke Jimmy Carter (from 30 years ago, much as he tried to invoke William Jennings Bryan from 110 years ago, the days of McCain's youth, no doubt).

    Sen. McCain, if you don't want to be "separated" from Bush, why do the comparisons bother you so much?

    And if the comparisons bother you so much, why do you vote with Bush and his administration 100% of the time in 2008 and 95% of the time in 2007?

    Sen. McCain - what you say and what you do are NOT the same thing.

    McCain - The Third Bush Term.
  • crackberri, on 08/03/2008, -7/+1No need to explain why you are an idiot…….
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 63 of 63 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.