What is Digg?138 Comments
- TruthExposed, on 06/27/2008, -12/+65McBush is the GOPs suicide.
- toetagger, on 06/28/2008, -6/+35http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dementia Does it really matter whether he's lying or is nuts? He shouldn't be president.
- inactive, on 06/28/2008, -4/+22This is worth digging just for the McRage picture.
- Sogladtobehere, on 06/28/2008, -11/+26yet he will undoubtably cast Obama as the flip-flopper as it worked so well for the GOP against Kerry.
- parrotheadpsu, on 06/28/2008, -3/+17you are correct, bush and mccain are not the same. mccain is even further out of touch from reality than bush is.
- samyoungguitar, on 06/27/2008, -17/+30What a piece of *****, power hungry, blood thirsty, hypocrite. When does his cocaine and male prostitute story come out.. you know he's got one.
- elipabst, on 06/28/2008, -3/+14Please describe major policy differences that distinguish the two.
- mikebb79, on 06/28/2008, -6/+16lmao @ the pic of McCain
- BashiBazouk, on 06/28/2008, -2/+12Dangerous.
Obama flips here and maybe a flop there but McCain is beyond flip flopping, he's a dam Mexican jumping bean on the issues. - toetagger, on 06/28/2008, -5/+14He's nuts. Every stand-up comic is praying this guy gets elected. Ca-Ching!
- irfanmp, on 06/27/2008, -3/+12You can't forget having gay sex in an airport bathroom...That's bound to come up sooner or later.
- archiesteel, on 06/28/2008, -4/+13Your pitiful attempt at deflection has failed. One only has to look at the series of flip-flops McCain has done over the past couple of weeks to see that he's the reigning flipping champion.
- 12DHutch, on 06/28/2008, -8/+17Someone should compile a list of all the confusing statements, contradictions, flip-flops and lies McCain has uttered these past couple of months. It seems as if each day he comes up with a new one. I just shake my head in amazement and wonder where his mind is. As Obama said... he's losing his bearings. It worries me that this man could become our next president. He's just "not all together here." Senility creeping in?
- phorty40, on 06/28/2008, -2/+11You wouldnt like McCain when he gets angry.
- bjornski, on 06/28/2008, -1/+8***** the high road.
We saw what it got us the last 2 Presidential elections.
So the Dems are supposed to play nice while the Repubs continue the status quo?
Not this year. - ichbeineinrcg, on 06/28/2008, -3/+10And where's the propoganda angle? McCain was one of the most outspoken voices against the new GI Bill, and now here he is patting himself on the back over the passage of said GI Bill. It's the most rank sort of hypocricy, and it's completely indefensible.
- nblsavage, on 06/28/2008, -8/+15Jerk whining about it? Check. Welcome to Digg.
- MikeFallopian, on 06/28/2008, -4/+10The bill that just passed was a compromise bill that included McCain's demand that benefits be transferable to family members. When that provision was added to the bill, he agreed to publicly support it.
- phike, on 06/28/2008, -1/+7On 9 of the top-10 most important issues this election season, McCain and Bush both stand on the same side.
- jackal42, on 06/28/2008, -0/+5Or calling your wife a ***** story....oh wait........
- fredJdukes, on 06/28/2008, -0/+5That's practically a bumper sticker!
- hydrex7, on 06/28/2008, -2/+7http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008_repub ...
Scroll down to "McCain Now Supports GI Bill, War Funding Bill", June 19, 2008 4:12 PM.
I don't like McCain, but I like to be fair. - mrsteveman1, on 06/28/2008, -3/+8Yes, McCain pronounces the full A sound in the word "potato" while bush uses a short O sound.
Worlds apart for sure. - inactive, on 06/28/2008, -2/+7lol @ people who think McCain has a shot: http://www.electoral-vote.com/
- archiesteel, on 06/28/2008, -6/+11What is partisan about pointing out the fact he opposed a bill, then took credit for it?
I'll tell you what's partisan: turning a blind eye to such blatant hypocrisy on McCain's part. - Mejari, on 06/28/2008, -0/+4You do know the only people claiming he's the messiah are the republican attack dogs, right?
- Mejari, on 06/28/2008, -0/+4I remember back before the 2004 election Stewart made an impassioned plea. Something along the lines of "Yes, I know my job would be a lot easier if you reelected Bush. Please, make my job hard."
I would assume the same statement would hold now (of course, it's obvious he has no trouble making fun of Obama). - vanguardanon, on 06/28/2008, -2/+6I wish I could find the article but I've been reading that a lot of US senators are not the policy wonks you wish they would be. Instead, they have staff that handles the actual production you expect from a senator while the senator himself is busy raising campaign dollars, glad handing supporters, and working the press conferences. In that light, it's not that surprising that McCain doesn't know what he's been for or what he's been against. It would mean he would need to know all the details of what his staff handles for him.
McCain has done a great job with his part of the job. Even before this election he was arguably the most well known senator in the country. He's been out in front on every press grabbing issue from steroids in baseball to UFC fighting to campaign finance reform. He spends almost no time on important but boring aspects of running the nation.
I'm sure he'll remain a senator for as long as he wants the job but he'll never get my vote. It's going to somebody that understands the issues. - jforjools, on 06/28/2008, -9/+13This is stunning. McCain's refusal to support the bill in the first place was stunning enough....and now he's taking credit for it????
Is he flipflopping? retarded? 'Losing his bearings'?? ...I have a real problem with the fact that any time someone points he's not making sense, he (and/or his staffers) call it age-descrimination.
Stupidity and nonsensical behavior do not equal 'elderly behavior'. - mrsteveman1, on 06/28/2008, -3/+7So, what the ***** are you saying? Obama isn't perfect and therefor we should vote for Paul?
As much as people like to pretend that "lesser of 2 evils" is a poor reason to vote, you still have to deal with the worse of the 2 evils if that person gets elected. Right now thats McCain. So criticize Obama all you want, i do for sure, but he's going to be elected even if large numbers of people vote for 3rd party candidates. - Troika37, on 06/28/2008, -6/+10This is similar to Obama saying he "passed laws" upon which he didn't even vote. Where's your outrage over that?
Obama: "That's why I passed laws ... [which] extended health care to wounded troops who've been neglected" (a citation at the bottom of the screen which reads "Public Law 110 - 181. PL 110-181 came out of HR 4986 - the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008)."
The problem is, Obama didn't even vote.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_li ...
Will the HuffPo get bent out of shape over this one? - fredJdukes, on 06/28/2008, -0/+3> Stupidity and nonsensical behavior do not equal 'elderly behavior'.
Yes they do. Just not exclusively.
McCain is a "senior moment" on strings. - nblsavage, on 06/28/2008, -4/+7cry some more btschul. Don't like the article, digg it down, like the article, digg it up. Such is the nature of Digg.
- medfreak, on 06/28/2008, -0/+3Yea Jon Stewart must be crossing his fingers.
- evilgourmet, on 06/28/2008, -2/+5This is why Arizona is a battleground state, he has done nothing for AZ -- and will do nothing for the USA.
- rhkenji, on 06/29/2008, -0/+3This guy is a complete idiot.. that is all.
- LoadStar, on 06/28/2008, -4/+7I'm not a fan of McCain by any stretch of the imagination, but what he is (pretty clearly in my opinion, if you watch the video) taking credit for is not the bill, but the addition of the clause that allows for the transfer of benefits to a spouse or dependents. McCain's biggest concern with the original form of the bill was that it would essentially be paying people to leave the armed forces. He doesn't seem to have a problem with the idea of rewarding those who serve with money for education after they get out - he just doesn't want them to all jump ship just to get the money.
The "we" in his statement refers to the primarily Republican party members who opposed the bill on this basis, and who pressed for the inclusion of the transfer clause. - archiesteel, on 06/28/2008, -0/+3lajaw, are you familiar with the concept of the Strawman argument?
- Pillage, on 06/29/2008, -0/+3# Special interests In January, the Obama campaign described union contributions to the campaigns of Clinton and John Edwards as "special interest" money. Obama changed his tune as he began gathering his own union endorsements. He now refers respectfully to unions as the representatives of "working people" and says he is "thrilled" by their support.
(Source: Washington Post)
# Public financing Obama replied "yes" in September 2007 when asked if he would agree to public financing of the presidential election if his GOP opponent did the same. Obama has now attached several conditions to such an agreement, including regulating spending by outside groups. His spokesman says the candidate never committed himself on the matter.
# The Cuba embargo In January 2004, Obama said it was time "to end the embargo with Cuba" because it had "utterly failed in the effort to overthrow Castro." Speaking to a Cuban American audience in Miami in August 2007, he said he would not "take off the embargo" as president because it is "an important inducement for change."
# Illegal immigration In a March 2004 questionnaire, Obama was asked if the government should "crack down on businesses that hire illegal immigrants." He replied "Oppose." In a Jan. 31, 2008, televised debate, he said that "we do have to crack down on those employers that are taking advantage of the situation."
# Decriminalization of Marijuana: While running for the U.S. Senate in January 2004, Obama told Illinois college students that he supported eliminating criminal penalties for marijuana use. In the Oct. 30, 2007, presidential debate, he joined other Democratic candidates in opposing the decriminalization of marijuana.
# Running for President or Vice President of the United States: On the January 22nd edition of “Meet the Press,” Tim Russert and Obama had the following exchange:Russert: “When we talked back in November of ‘04 after your election, I said, ‘There’s been enormous speculation about your political future. Will you serve your six-year term as United States senator from Illinois?’”Obama: “I will serve out my full six-year term. You know, Tim, if you get asked enough, sooner or later you get weary and you start looking for new ways of saying things. But my thinking has not changed.”Russert: “So you will not run for president or vice president in 2008?” Obama: “I will not.”
# Single-Payer Healthcare: On January 22nd, the Hillary Clinton Campaign releases a video that proves that Obama lied about his position on “single-payer healthcare.”The video compares statements Obama made during the January 21st Democratic debate with those he made to an AFL-CIO conference in June 2003 while campaigning for the Senate. Contradicting what Obama said at the debate, the old footage shows the senator saying, “I happen to be a proponent of single-payer universal healthcare coverage. That’s what I’d like to see.”At the debate, Obama stated: “I never said that we should try to go ahead and get single-payer (healthcare).”Single-payer healthcare is an euphemism for socialized medicine.
# NAFTA: On February 29th, the Obama campaign told Canadian Television (CTV) that no message was passed to the Canadian government suggesting that Obama does not mean what he says about opting out of NAFTA if it is not renegotiated.However, the Obama camp did not respond to repeated questions from CTV on reports that a conversation on this matter was held between Obama’s senior economic adviser, Austan Goolsbee, and the Canadian Consulate General in Chicago.Earlier Thursday, the Obama campaign insisted that no conversations have taken place with any of its senior ranks and representatives of the Canadian government on the NAFTA issue. On Thursday night, CTV spoke with Goolsbee, but he refused to say whether he had such a conversation with the Canadian government office in Chicago. He also said he has been told to direct any questions to the campaign headquarters.CTV didn’t stop there. They announced that their sources, at the highest levels of the Canadian government,” reconfirmed the story to CTV and one of their primary sources provided a timeline of the discussion to CTV.
# Donations from Lobbyists and Special Interest PACS: Obama say he doesn’t take money from DC lobbyists and special interest PACS. This is the type of double-talk “politics of the past” rhetoric Obama rails against.While his claim is technically true, what he does do is take money from state lobbyists and other big money contributors who have substantial lobbyist machines in DC, like law firms and corporations.In April 2007, the LA Times quoted the Campaign Finance Institute’s Stephen Weissman as pointing out that the distinction Obama makes on lobbyist money is meaningless: “He gets an asterisk that says he is trying to be different. … But overall, the same wealthy interests are funding his campaign as are funding other candidates, whether or not they are lobbyists.”The Capital Eye reported that “[a]ccording to the Center for Responsive Politics, 14 of Obama’s top 20 contributors employed lobbyists this year, spending a total of $16.2 million to influence the federal government in the first six months of 2007.”
# Rev. Jeremiah Wright: Barack Obama repudiated what he called “inflammatory and appalling remarks” made by his Chicago pastor.Obama said he had not been present during the sermons in question.Obama told MSNBC, “Had I heard them in church I would have expressed that concern directly to Rev. Wright.”Please note, he says that he would have expressed concern, not repudiate, the words. (Source: Audacity of Hypocrisy) Previously Obama had said "I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother — a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe."
# Jerusalem: "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided," Obama declared Wednesday, to rousing applause from the 7,000-plus attendees at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee policy conference.
But a campaign adviser clarified Thursday that Obama believes "Jerusalem is a final status issue, which means it has to be negotiated between the two parties" as part of "an agreement that they both can live with."
# Meeting with Foreign Leaders: Obama Now Claims That He Will Only Meet With Foreign Leaders At A Time Of His Choosing If It Will Advance U.S. Interests, But Previously Said He Would Meet With Rogue Leaders His First Year In Office Without Preconditions:
In His Remarks To The AIPAC Conference, Obama Claimed That He Would Only Meet With The "Appropriate Iranian Leaders At A Time And Place" Of His Choosing. Obama: "Contrary to the claims of some, I have no interest in sitting down with our adversaries just for the sake of talking. But as President of the United States, I would be willing to lead tough and principled diplomacy with the appropriate Iranian leaders at a time and place of my choosing - if, and only if - it can advance the interests of the United States." (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At The Annual AIPAC Policy Conference, Arlington, VA, 6/4/08)
But At A July 2007 Debate, Obama Said He Would Meet With Hostile Leaders During His First Year In Office. Question: "[W]ould you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?"...Obama: "I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them - which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration - is ridiculous." (CNN/YouTube Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Charleston, SC, 7/23/07)
At A September 2007 Press Conference, Obama Confirmed That He Would Meet Specifically With Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Question: "Senator, you've said before that you'd meet with President Ahmadinejad ..." Obama: "Uh huh." Question: "Would you still meet with him today?" Obama: "Yeah, nothing's changed with respect to my belief that strong countries and strong presidents talk to their enemies and talk to their adversaries. I find many of President Ahmadinejad's statements odious and I've said that repeatedly. And I think that we have to recognize that there are a lot of rogue nations in the world that don't have American interests at heart. But what I also believe is that, as John F. Kennedy said, we should never negotiate out of fear but we should never fear to negotiate." (Sen. Barack Obama, Press Conference, New York, NY, 9/24/07)
# Legislation Labeling Iran's Revolutionary Guard A Terrorist Organization: Obama Has Been Inconsistent In His Views On Labeling Iran's Revolutionary Guard A Terrorist Organization. "Obama's campaign suddenly discovered that their man -despite having spent the last nine months campaigning on his opposition to Kyl-Lieberman - 'has consistently urged that Iran's Revolutionary Guard be labeled what it is: a terrorist organization.' Well, not that consistently. Senator Obama has been scrupulously careful not to call explicitly for designation of the IRGC as a terrorist organization. Now, however, with the Democratic nomination almost in hand, Obama feels comfortable telling a pro-Israel audience what it wants to hear."(Danielle Pletka, "Obama's Pander Pivot," Weekly Standard, 6/4/08)
"[T]he Audience At AIPAC Might Ask Why Senator Obama Has Pivoted From Opposition To 'Lieberman-Kyl' To Support For The IRGC Designation His Audience Demands. Is This Really Change They Can Believe In?" (Danielle Pletka, "Obama's Pander Pivot," Weekly Standard, 6/4/08)
"Which Barack Obama Will Be The Democratic Standard-Bearer: The One Who Vowed To 'Eliminate' The Iranian Nuclear Threat Two Days Ago, Or The One Who Opposed Designating The Revolutionary Guards A Terrorist Organization?" (Editorial, "Obama And Iran," The Washington Times, 6/6/08)
# Palestinian Elections In 2006: Obama Says That He Opposed Palestinian Elections In 2006. Obama: "There is no room at the negotiating table for terrorist organizations. That is why I opposed holding elections in 2006 with Hamas on the ballot. The Israelis and the Palestinian Authority warned us at the time against holding these elections, but this administration pressed ahead. And the result is a Gaza controlled by Hamas, with rockets raining down on Israel." (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At The Annual AIPAC Policy Conference, Arlington, VA, 6/4/08)
But During His 2006 Trip To The Middle East, Obama Met With Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas And Said The Election Represented An "Opportunity...To Consolidate Behind A Single Government." "Illinois Senator Barack Obama's journey to the Middle East took him to the West Bank Thursday for a meeting with the man elected to replace Yasser Arafat. ... For a time Thursday in the West Bank there was only the clatter of cameras as the newly elected president of the Palestinian authority, Mahmoud Abbas, met with Illinois Senator Barack Obama. At a meeting with Palestinian students Thursday, Obama said the U.S. will never recognize winning Hamas candidates unless the group renounces its fundamental mission to eliminate Israel, and Obama told ABC7 he delivered that message to the Palestinian president. 'Part of the opportunity here with this upcoming election is to consolidate behind a single government with a single authority that can then negotiate as a reliable partner with Israel,' said Obama." (Chuck Goudie, "Obama Meets With Arafat's Successor," ABC 7 News, http://obama.senate.gov, 1/12/06)
The Palestinian News Agency WAFA Reported That Obama Was Supportive Of The Palestinian Elections Being Held At Their Scheduled Time. "President Mahmoud Abbas met Thursday with the U.S. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL), in the Presidential HQ in Ramallah...President briefed the U.S. Senator about the latest developments in the Palestinian territories including the preparations for the legislative elections.... Abbas and Obama discussed the means of underpinning the American-Palestinian economic relations...Obama asserted the US supports and eager that the Palestinian legislative elections on its proposed time (January 25)." ("President Meets U.S. Senator And Armenian Delegation," WAFA, http://english.wafa.ps, 1/12/06)
# Iraq War: “At a time when American casualties are down, at a time when the violence is down, particularly affecting the Iraqi population, is that the right time to try and set time tables for withdrawing all American troops? I mean you talked about…the end of 2009,” Kroft remarked.
“Yeah, absolutely. I think now is precisely the time. I think that it is very important for us to send a clear signal to the Iraqis that we are not gonna be here permanently. We’re not gonna set up permanent bases. That they are going to have to resolve their differences and get their country functioning,” Obama said.
“And you pull out according to that time table, regardless of the situation? Even if there’s serious sectarian violence?” Kroft asked.
“No, I always reserve as commander in chief, the right to assess the sit - scoottie, on 06/28/2008, -0/+3http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/06/mc ...
- medfreak, on 06/28/2008, -1/+4@btschul
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/28/obama-und ...
STFU. - Pillage, on 06/29/2008, -0/+3You've become that which you hate and you will deny it, but you know in your heart for it to be true
- greatawakening, on 06/28/2008, -0/+2Z's don't add emphasis.
- iupetre, on 06/28/2008, -4/+6You guys need to spread this around. MSM is no where near this story.
- dexter411, on 06/28/2008, -1/+3I love that you were dugg down for that. The high road is apparently exclusively for anyone criticizing your candidate.
- HappyScrappy, on 06/28/2008, -7/+9Flipper McCain
- inactive, on 06/29/2008, -0/+2yes.
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Info/polling ... - hinchb, on 06/28/2008, -0/+2Of course he does now when its apparent that its going to pass, he already stated his position, though.
- scoottie, on 06/28/2008, -1/+3http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/06/mc ...
McCain Now Supports GI Bill, War Funding Bill
June 19, 2008 4:12 PM
ABC News' Z. Byron Wolf reports: Sen. John McCain did not vote last month when Senators passed their version of a war funding emergency supplemental. But he said the bill being considered then was overloaded with funding for non-war related projects and he objected to a sweeping new benefit for veterans to get the equivalent of state college tuition and a living stipend after only a few years service because he worried it would affect military retention rates.
But, with the addition of a clause allowing service members to transfer their benefits to family members, McCain now supports the 21st Century Bill of Rights, the proposal to give substantially more benefits to veterans for college after their service in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And he'll support a deal between the White House and House Democrats to fund the war along with $21 billion in domestic spending.
In a written statement from his Senate office -- while he never explicitly says he'll vote for it -- the Arizona Republican praises a deal between White House and Congressional negotiators for a war funding bill that includes the GI Bill, and $21 billion in non-war-related funding like a three month extension of unemployment benefits and emergency funding for Katrina and Midwest flood relief.
Cut out of the bill are billions in low income heating fuel assistance and grants for state and local law enforcement agencies. Last month, he called a similar but more expensive version of the supplemental war funding bill "bloated" and "loaded down with extraneous provisions unrelated to the ongoing conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan."
Today, McCain's Senate office released a written statement which read:
“I am pleased an agreement has finally been reached to fund our troops... Fortunately, it is reported that an agreement between the House, Senate, and Administration is imminent, and urgently needed funding will be enacted shortly not only to aid our troops, but to fund several emergencies throughout our nation, particularly in the Midwest. We need to provide federal assistance to these flood damaged communities as soon as possible."
When the Senate had considered its version of the war supplemental, McCain had argued, along with the White House and the Pentagon, that the new GI Bill, which got support from a veto-proof majority of Senators, would encourage service members to leave the military. He had offered a less generous counterproposal that would have given service members a much smaller credit for college and given better benefits to people who served longer.
It would also have allowed veterans to transfer their benefits to family members. This last point is addressed in the compromise with a clause to allow veterans to transfer their benefits. But the benefits themselves will be at the higher level endorsed by Sens. Jim Webb, D-VA, Chuck Hagel, R-Neb, and John Warner, R-VA.
"That has always been my primary concern with respect to the Webb bill, and it is essential that we continue to act decisively to encourage military service and ensure the well being of our All Volunteer Force," McCain said in the written statement.
"With the addition of the transferability provisions sought by Senators Graham, Burr, myself and others to give service members the right to transfer earned G.I. Bill benefits to spouses and children, we will have achieved in offering vastly improved educational benefit while also offering incentives for continued service by the most capable, experienced NCO’s and officers. Our courageous NCO’s and officers called for this option, and I believe that its inclusion in this bill will help maintain retention levels in all the Services where it needs to be for the well being of the All Volunteer Force and our Nation.”
It is likely that McCain's opponent, Sen. Barack Obama, will oppose the final supplemental funding bill because it does not include a binding requirement for the phased withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. Obama has publicly supported the GI Bill proposal.
The White House supports the new supplemental bill including the GI Bill portion, and that presumably means the Pentagon agrees with it too. - BillE3, on 06/28/2008, -2/+4He is just trying emulate all of his favorite democrats and seperate himself from the republicans.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 140 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is