And McCain was right about the almost million dollars a day in earmarks that obama denied.

The problem with earmarks is, like “hiring freezes” and “budget freezes,” a ban doesn’t work.  Voting against all earmarks is easy as long as you know they’re going to pass anyway, so the nation still gets various building, road, etc., programs, and you can grandstand and say you’re against spending.  But, if we do away with earmarks, we still need a prioritizing program, and still need a budget for the acceptable projects.  That’s fine, but the grandstanding hasn’t solved anything yet and he’s been in DC for about 30 years.  I am confident that Obama will reform the system, along the lines of the system that Jindal has halfway and clumsily initiated in LA.

John McCain delivered a solid performance in the first presidential debate of the general election Friday night, one more impressive than that of Barack Obama. Obama’s surrogates are complaining in every available venue that McCain was “condescending” and “mean,” a sure sign their man lost. For our money, McCain wasn’t tough enough on Obama.

McCain won anyway, because Obama was so defensive when talking about foreign policy — and has so much to explain away, such as his rash promise to sit down with dictators without preconditions. McCain did an effective job of hitting Obama’s refusal to admit that he erred on the surge.

And of course, obama agrees with McCain:

Senator McCain is absolutely right that the earmarks process has been abused…”

“He’s also right that oftentimes lobbyists and special interests are the ones that are introducing these…requests…”

“John mentioned the fact that business taxes on paper are high in this country, and he’s absolutely right…”

“John is right we have to make cuts…”

“Senator McCain is absolutely right that the violence has been reduced as a consequence of the extraordinary sacrifice of our troops and our military families…”

“John — you’re absolutely right that presidents have to be prudent in what they say…”

“Senator McCain is absolutely right, we cannot tolerate a nuclear Iran…”

Good count.  McCain was right 8 times, and Obama kindly gave him credit.  Even looked right at him.  Or are you saying no, Obama is always wrong in your political theology, so therefore he must have been wrong to say McCain was right.  You’re blinded by hate of O so much you’re willing to say he’s dead wrong in calling McC right?  That must be it.

Bobby Jindal - 29 September 2008 09:50 AM

Good count.  McCain was right 8 times, and Obama kindly gave him credit.  Even looked right at him.  Or are you saying no, Obama is always wrong in your political theology, so therefore he must have been wrong to say McCain was right.  You’re blinded by hate of O so much you’re willing to say he’s dead wrong in calling McC right?  That must be it.

I don’t hate obama, I just don’t want him running my country..  You guys, on the other hand, are rabid in your hatred of Bush… You even try and connect McCain to him to keep your hate going. You should try therapy.

obama asked McCain how we got to this point early in the debate.  He might ask his close adviser Jim Johnson, who headed Fannie Mae and got an exorbitant pay package.”

obama’s promises??

obama promised that we would deliver a tax cut to 95 percent of Americans. McCain could have said: “Senator Obama has made a lot of promises. In 2005, he promised that he wouldn’t run for president. In 2007, he promised that he would work aggressively to ensure public financing of the presidential campaign. In 2008, he promised to fire any staffer who attacked Governor Palin’s family. He broke all those promises. And now he promises to cut your taxes. Right.”

obama claimed that he “stood up and opposed this war” when it was politically risky. McCain might have replied: “In 2002, Senator Obama said he was against the war. Two years later he said, ‘There’s not that much difference between my position and George Bush’s position at this stage.’ Then he went back to opposing it again. So he was against the war before he was for the war before he was against it. Senator Obama should compare notes with Senator Kerry.”

Obama listed a number of energy options, including “clean-coal technology.” That line was perhaps McCain’s greatest missed opportunity of the night. “It seems that the real debate here is between Senator Obama and his running mate,” McCain might have said. “A few days ago, Senator Biden said — and I quote — ` We’re not supporting clean coal.’”

fred - 29 September 2008 09:55 AM

obama claimed that he “stood up and opposed this war” when it was politically risky. McCain might have replied: “In 2002, Senator Obama said he was against the war. Two years later he said, ‘There’s not that much difference between my position and George Bush’s position at this stage.’ Then he went back to opposing it again.

That’s a good quotation, because it shows Obama is practical, and puts the lie to the radical portrait of him fantasized by rightwing extremists blinded by their hatred.  He did not support the invasion, but given the reality, he backed the funding and the need for the US to deal responsibly with the imbalance in power that the invasion caused. 

“Look, I was opposed to this war in 2002, 2003, four, five, six and seven. What I was very clear about, even in 2002 in my original opposition, was once we were in, we were going to have to make some decisions to see how we could stabilize the situation and act responsibly.  And that’s what I did through 2004, five and six, try to see can we create a workable government in Iraq? Can we make sure that we are minimizing the humanitarian costs in Iraq?  Can we make sure that our troops are safe in Iraq?  And that’s what I have done.”

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/21738432/page/2/

Even when Obama’s analysis of a situation proved correct, such as his observation the Chinese presence in South America and Africa is noticeable, as is America’s diminished presence, he offered to remedy. His answer to every problem is to blame every thing he does not like on Bush’s decision to invade Iraq.

The more voters ponder this, the more they will decide that, while Obama might make an enjoyable dinner guest, McCain would make the stronger president. Through his seriousness, sense of purpose, and demeanor, he showed this from start to finish.

Why not at least put a link to this string of quotations from the magazine that’s doing the talking for you.....

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjhlMjU0N2JjNDhlMjllNTUyY2YzNWYyZGQzMzYwNmQ=

This author, Felzenberg, who backed McCain even in the Repub primaries, is not much of a prognosticator.  Whatever he says, you can expect the opposite to be true!!

=========

After all the talk of diversity, democratization, increased Democratic registration, increased participation, and mobilized young voters, this nomination is going to be settled in a back room where “with it” delegates, like Democrats of old, do their mischief behind arcane procedures comprehensible only to party professionals and skillful attorneys. The rules committee, scheduled to convene on May 30, is tasked with figuring out how to allocate delegates from the two large states Hillary wants in her camp. It should be one hilarious show.

After all the fuss is over, delegates pledged to both candidates and those still on the fence will have to decide at the convention whether to accept whatever report the committee produces. And the losing side gets to challenge the credentials of whichever delegates from the two states are seated. The ghost of Will Rogers, who denied that he belonged to an organized political party on the grounds that he was a Democrat, will be looking down smiling.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YWU0MGFkNTcyMjVlNmVlMWRlOGViMzRkNGM1MjQ0NTc=

========

As they trash McCain for selecting to run with a most talented understudy, those talking heads we see on television purporting to report what American people are thinking, missed the real story. Palin is not so much as a game changer, but a history changer. In an instant, McCain, injected into his party what it so badly needs, a new face, new energy, and a reshuffled deck — both for now and for years to come.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDM0NTdiZTBkZDIxYTgyOTEyODI2MmVhMDcxNTU5YzU=

=========

Obama’s choice will not be easy.

He can accept Hillary as his running mate, creating the impression that he is weak. This will cause new speculation that he surrendered major many chunks of his presidency before he even won the election.  Alternatively, Obama can spurn Hilary and work hard to charm her supporters into voting for him. That will entail taking as his running mate a Hillary backer with appeal to working-class voters, such as Pennsylvania governor Ed Rendell.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmQyY2U5M2NlZGFlZTNjMjRkYjI0MWRjNjhiZjI4NGU=

I knew you’d find it.. I only use them every day!!

The fact you are going to that site is encouraging.