Quoting Snark:

Quote:
Quoting Dan W:

Quote:
Quoting Snark:

Quote:

According to the WP analysis (a left leaning paper) Obama sided with his party 96.% of the time while the 'Maverick' did so 88.1% of the time.  This only counts the times they turned up of course.

Not only do I agree that the Washington Post is a "left leaning" publication I feel that this is a huge understatement. It is extremely "left" in it's views and spin on almost any topic.

I chose their list because it is about a concise a voting list as you might find. (Ok, I admit it, it was towards the top of the google search too.)

They're definately tilted, but they usually do their research and get their facts right.  Unfortunately to get a full picture of what's going on without undue bias you need to hit a number of sources these days. 

I usually hit Washinton Post, National Review, CNN, NYTimes, WSJ, Guardian and Fox News at least once a day each... 

...I wonder if there is a 12 step prgram...

I was a bit suprised at how high McCain's not voting record was coparied to Obama's.  I knew that Obama's attendence sucked (It's been reported on a number of sites), but I hadn't expected the McCain's would be worse.  I've followed their voting positions in general, but didn't delve into the details in list form. 

It's an interesting read, thanks for bringing it up.

One thing I will say in defense of these congressmen and senators is that in order to cast an informed vote on a topic, they must do a large amount of reading.

Reading is something they tend not to do enough of. This, of course, gives them their favorite excuse for reversing themselves; "after I voted for it, I did my research and changed my mind." What they don't tell you is that many times they cast  a vote without reading anything at all.

I know it's boring as hell but for just one afternoon (yes, I mean one whole afternoon), turn your TV on and watch congress at work. It is a very enlightening experience. It is disheartening to realize that out of so many, about ten show up to vote on the average topic.

Quoting lyonsden5:

Quote:
Something you may find interesting ( I know I did).

A representation of how each member of congress "plays well with the other side". As you can see McCain is right where he has always claimed to be. Willing to work with both sides of the aisle. Omaba on the other had is only interested in working with those who lean way to the left.

If you want someone who will continue the partisanship we currently have you should most certainly vote for Obama. However if you want someone who has a track record of working with both sides almost equally your man is McCain.

Let's be honest here, McCain is not working with both sides "almost equally".  On a partisan vote level he varies from his party more than Obama has, but he's not in the middle in any sense of the word.  For the most part both side with their own party.

In "nomal" times I'd love to see McCain elected.  Not because of the man, but because congress will be overwhealimingly democratic.  That pretty much ensures that only centrist legislation gets through.  But as tipped as the scales are right now I don't have the luxury of going that route.

Quoting Dan W:

Quote:
Yes, by all means, let's be honest! The fact that you lean to the left is keeping you from admitting the fact that McCain is, in fact, the middle. Obama is very left. Only when measuring McCain by Obama (or others like him) only then, can you make such a false statement as you just made.

   

Believe whatever makes you happy Dan.

Quoting Rico:

Quote:
Hi Guys,

Quote:
Rifter wrote:
When have 20 odd generals endorsing McCain, and three or four the other guy, it should be obvious which way the military feels is right.  As anyone who has spent time in the military or around it will tell you, there are some who rise to command grade via the political side of things, not the military/combat side.  We all know who those officers are, and they are roundly rejected by most military people as far as their opinions are concerned.

Well it may give a inkling how or who the military will vote for; that was not the question here. The question is why do these generals fear McCain will start more wars.

Why is it so difficult for conservatives like your self to to factually honestly dis-credit the 3 - 4 high ranking military men depicted in the video?

Brian claimed the video I've posted is most likely (my words, most likely) fake. To counter my claim he posted very crude & unbelievably altered videos. That counter proves absolutely nothing. In an attempt to defend my post, I've looked at other sites and have posted for your inspection. At least this is an honest attempt to ferret out the truth, regarding McCain & more wars.

Quote:
Rifter wrote:
Hate to say it, but somehow that doesn't surprise in the least.

Your obviously very knowledgeable in history politics in general. I can only assume your goal is to convert (with your posts) folks over to conservatism. Statements like 'We all know' etc. says to the reader "Trust Me" but offers no proof.

Take Care
Rico

This whole line of discussion is nothing more than the Goldwater ad showing a nuclear detonation.  Fearmongering, nothing more.

Unless you or those generals have some special powers, they have no idea what the future will bring or how John McCain will react.

Quoting Snark:

Quote:

Let's be honest here, McCain is not working with both sides "almost equally".  On a partisan vote level he varies from his party more than Obama has, but he's not in the middle in any sense of the word.  For the most part both side with their own party.

Thanks for the reminder of why I stay out of forum political discussions 

Rico,

You throw out this notion that the indication in left wing hit piece that 3 generals/admirals out of more than 100 think McCain is not suited to be president is somehow raises serious doubts about McCain -- on what you base this on I have no idea. It seems that it plays into a strong feeling/belief you already had -- the fact that over 100 senior military leaders disagree seems to matter not at all to you.

I'm not sure why you belief these 3 guys might have some insight into McCain that requires some kind of search for the truth - as if this is anything other than a matter of opinion in any case. You say 3 generals feel McCain is unsuited to be President -- I point out that over 100 of their colleagues disagree and you essentially ignore that fact because it doesn't fit your preconception. Why are these 3 generals more credible about McCain than the other 100? Any concern I would have had about these 3 generals is more than answered by the fact that they are a small minority of the group (admirals and generals) you acknowledge is a worthwhile measuring stick for suitability to be commander in chief.

You hide behind this argument that all you are doing is pointing out it should "raise doubts" or be "a cause for concern" -- but you don't acknowledge thet reality is that I did "search for the truth" and discovered that these generals are a small fraction of their peer group. Given that 97% of admirals and generals prefer mccain there seems to be much greater doubt about Obama's fitness to lead. Why else would the vast majority of admirals/generals be supporting his opponent? -- Shouldn't that cause you to doubt Obama and "seek the truth" about him?

You also throw out this notion that somehow these 3 lone Generals must have some special knowledge the other 100 don't have -- based on what? the article you cite contains virtually no details about their views -- the bulk of the piece is a left wing reporter characterizing their views - not them speaking for themselves.

On the videos -- the notion that the first video I cited was any different in tone or credibility from the one you used is nonsense. The second one I linked was a joke and an indication of how ridiculous some of this stuff can get. The video you linked has all the same characteristics as the one I cited -- the clever editing, the ominous music, the overhyped drama etc. -- both have some merit but both are more propaganda than anything. Like I said I could probably paint Obama as a warmonger if I had enough footage and time. It's no big surprise McCain has talked about war on the campaign trail - we are currently in 2 significant wars at the moment! Would you prefer he mislead people?

I think his comments about war were mostly thougthful and honest -- despite the obvious heavy handed editing. If you research hard enough and search for the truth you might find some contrary evidence about McCain so get to it!

Brian

Here are a couple of videos on McCain that I found that paint a different picture:

McCain Responds to "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran" Video

John McCain Foreign Policy Address @ World Affairs Council

Brian

Quoting Dan W:

Quote:
Quoting Snark:

Quote:

According to the WP analysis (a left leaning paper) Obama sided with his party 96.% of the time while the 'Maverick' did so 88.1% of the time.  This only counts the times they turned up of course.

Not only do I agree that the Washington Post is a "left leaning" publication I feel that this is a huge understatement. It is extremely "left" in it's views and spin on almost any topic.

I chose their list because it is about as concise a voting list as you might find. (Ok, I admit it, it was towards the top of the google search too.)

The Washington Post left-leaning...surely thou dost jest.        

Skip