Comments Posted By Michael B.
Displaying 11 To 20 Of 127 Comments
I PREFER THE 'PROM DRESS' ANALOGY MYSELF
Mr. Tucson, you are almost correct... you say most Republicans don't like McCain, but the truth is, most conservatives don't like him (if it was Republicans that did not like him, he would not be the nominee). However, like reversing one's position on a bridge to nowhere after getting all the facts, most of us conservatives have reversed our position on McCain after seeing him tip his hat to conservatives (with a Palin selections versus Lieberman), but more importantly, because of his absolute, resolute commitment to appointing strict constructionist jurists as SCOTUS appointments, acknowledging that the immigration reform was improper before securing our borders (i.e. enforcing existing laws), and his commitment to tax cuts on investments and corporations. He has made all of these, very public commitments, and unlike prior "pure politicians", we believe that he is a man of his word.
But after that brilliant exegesis, I'm going to f-it all up by admitting that you are also right about her being a pretty hot milf (or more correctly, a v-pilf).
Comment Posted By Michael B. On 10.09.2008 @ 19:25
Retire05, good insight about Obama needing to stick to the teleprompter. But then he runs the danger of a "Ron Burgundy" moment!
Comment Posted By Michael B. On 10.09.2008 @ 14:56
Shaun, I love those arguments (Palin unqualified)...
Palin- 8 years of executive experience (mayor, governor)
Obama- 0 years of executive experience, but campaigned for president for 19 months.Palin- running for vice president
Obama- running for presidentPalin- unqualified for vice president?
Obama- unqualified for president.Keep making that argument.
Comment Posted By Michael B. On 10.09.2008 @ 14:35
"Read the fucking post. I say that McCain has used the idiom before. And if you’re not going to read the post before commenting, you will be banned. Period."
Ahhhh, Rick is back. You go, man.
As incompetent as the Obama camp's responses seem (are), in fairness, they truly are f*cked no matter what they do- the Palin choice usurps their "change" mantra, excites the base, pulls in PUMA's, pulls in independent women, and gives guys like me a hard-on.
One more thing: I hate to say "I told you so" (okay, actually I love it), but my comment #1 from http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2008/08/29/obamas-speech-not-bad-at-all/#comments said:
"But I disagree with you about his bounce. I predict the polls will be even, or McCain ahead by 2 to 3 by mid-September- the Palin choice will solidify the conservative base (I am dancing a jig right now over Palin), and she will draw in a LOT of women voters."
Even a broken clock is right twice a day, huh?
Comment Posted By Michael B. On 10.09.2008 @ 12:39
OBAMA'S SPEECH: NOT BAD AT ALL
Yes he reads that teleprompter very well. The entire speech was unadulterated dissimulation. The pass that he gets for flip-flopping on nearly every important issue is gut-wrenching for me- so I hit the record button, and went to bed. Maybe I'll watch the rest later.
I agree with you (from what I saw) that it was B-, even excluding the lies from consideration on his performance. But I disagree with you about his bounce. I predict the polls will be even, or McCain ahead by 2 to 3 by mid-September- the Palin choice will solidify the conservative base (I am dancing a jig right now over Palin), and she will draw in a LOT of women voters. Of course, he could f*ck it all up by surprising me with Lieberman, but it certainly looks lilke Palin.
Comment Posted By Michael B. On 29.08.2008 @ 09:38
HALFWAY HOME AND DEMS STILL CAN'T FIND UNITY
Warner got demoted last night, because he refused to attack McCain. They moved him earlier in the schedule than the normal time for keynote. This may very well have been the reason for his yawner of a speech. I can't think of any reason for his refusal to attack McCain. I haven't heard of any personal closeness he and McCain have, and if he thinks that rising above attacks will endear him to the dem crowd, he's deluded (and he's not). Maybe he just doesn't like being told what to say. In any event, I hope that Virginians see it as a slight, since that state is still in the toss-up category.
Comment Posted By Michael B. On 27.08.2008 @ 13:30
OBAMA PLAYING HARDBALL - THE CHICAGO WAY
Chuck, show me a poll where Obama stops losing ground, and I'll agree with you that this story is "just not" tasty. Until then, let me share with you one of my favorite sayings: wishing it wasn't so, doesn't make it not so.
Comment Posted By Michael B. On 27.08.2008 @ 13:18
Mr. Stew, first of all, past elections should not set the standard for the current election (i.e. don't try to justify bad behaviour by pointing out worse behavior). Furthermore, its definitely arguable about who the most qualified candidate was in the past 4 elections. But with regards to the thin resume, I can think of no candidate in history that has a less qualifications (I'm not a history expert, but "community organizer" has to be the thinnest resume ever).
More importantly, I believe that you are dead-wrong in your assessment that independents and undecideds don't care about the Ayers relationship, and Obama's poll numbers dropping speak to the veracity of that.
Finally, the relationship to the House of Saud is one that has existed since 1945, so a whole bunch of presidents have been forgiven for that association. What other terrorists are do you refer to?
Comment Posted By Michael B. On 27.08.2008 @ 07:57
To Sure-I'll-Buy-You-Stew (no thanks, by the way),
Let me break this down for you...
from Wikipedia: "The Ethics Committee ruled that the involvement of McCain in the scheme was also minimal, and he too was cleared of all charges against him.[17][16] McCain was criticized by the Committee for exercising "poor judgment" when he met with the federal regulators on Keating's behalf.[6] The report also said that McCain's "actions were not improper nor attended with gross negligence and did not reach the level of requiring institutional action against him....Senator McCain has violated no law of the United States or specific Rule of the United States Senate."
Many say that McCain was not exhonerated to prevent it from being a purely Democrat scandal. But this one-time error in judgment does not, in any way, approach the 20+ year relationship (extended error in judgment) with an unrepentant terrorist. To equate the two is a stretch, even for kool-aid drinkers.
Conservatives don't worship McCain. We acknowledge all his warts, and have accepted his as the alternative to a truly bad person. Furthermore, most conservatives defend Obama for the various unsubstantiated charges alleged against him (Muslim, unpatriotic, etc.). If you want to support him, fine. But can't you at least acknowledge that a long-term relatonship with Ayers is poor long-term judgment? Or can you at least admit that it is a valid thing to question?
Comment Posted By Michael B. On 26.08.2008 @ 19:16
Two points: Obama is so accustomed to confronting any criticism with whining (and for the most part, getting satisfaction), that he continues this line of defense. And as Politico reports, "The effort has met with some success: CNN and Fox News are not airing the attacks."
Second, it is stunning that the people of Illinois put up with this kind of blatant corruption. Sure, a few heads are rolling now, but this is just the tip of the iceberg. What does it take to get a federal investigation, circa the 1970 Knapp Commission?
Comment Posted By Michael B. On 26.08.2008 @ 09:32
