Some people like to hear themselves type. I'll leave it at that...

It is no surprise that you believe Obama would appeal to all Americans. However, in the real world, his policy positions are liberal. There are many of us out there who don't much like liberal politics. Sorry to prick your bubble.

I never said his policies weren't liberal... reread. I said its about noticing the differences and being able to COMPROMISE, which he has proven he is able to do time and time again... (no need to address your fallacious statement of seeing "One America" and continuing to bash people, including Obama, for what you consider liberal or left leaning ideology.)

There are many of us out there who don't much like liberal politics.


The key operative word is politics, not the people who hold the political view. I don't like liberal politics which is why I plan to vote for McCain. I'm betting you don't like conservative politics which is why you won't be voting for McCain.

I challenge you to find one of my posts where I have bashed Liberals or where I have bashed Obama.

I puposely avoid denegrating anyone, and really do believe that America is a unified country. The partisan divisions we see in the blogosphere (right and left) are not representative of the mainstream America I live in.

Yes, indeed it is fun to watch.

Especially as he continues to try to re-frame the discussion in an attempt to derail it and keep from answering the initial question that was put to him.

I never asked him WHY he was voting for McCain. He was widely touting McCain's "change" policies and how he has more ownership of this rhetoric than Obama does IN THIS CAMPAIGN.

To which I asked him to address the SPECIFIC change that McCain is calling for in his campaign that he will enact when he's president that will "fix" what's broken in Washington.

The fact of the matter is, there IS no "change" in McCain from Bush.

He tested the "change" message in focus groups and it tested high, and he tried to co-opt it for his campaign, and yet he has NO meat to hang on it.

There is NO concrete change that he ever actually intends to pursue!

QBC disagreed. So I requested he share with us ANY specific change (actually I specified 3 -- should be an easy enough thing to do if it's legitimate) that McCain is promoting.


He.

Couldn't.

Do.

It.

And still can't.

So he needs to throw another distraction thread out there to keep everyone from seeing that "The Emperor Has No Clothes."

You are speaking from your liberal perspective. Since you see conservative policies as flawed, it is no surprise that you wouldn't understand why someone would continue to support them.


There is nothing to spin. You are a liberal and I am a conservative. We both have different views of the world and how it operates. It sounds pretty straight forward to me.

You don't liberal policies, but like conservative policies. You are currently enjoying the economic implosion, our military being tied down in 2 wars weakening its ability to defend the US in case of a real threat, your Constitutional rights being washed away little by little until there is nothing left.

The whole point of this thread was to bash liberals and Obama.

I thought you said you like Conservative policies? Partisanship and dividing the nation against one another has been the cornerstone of the Republican strategy since the Nixon Era. Just ask Pat Buchanan, it was his idea.

If you just didn't have such a way of making that sound like your superior for your conservatism . The reason I like being a liberal and being around liberals is they don't believe they are any better than anyone else.

On capital hill and in the blogosphere, partisan politics is alive and well. However, I don't live in either of these places. Where I live, I see carefree people going about their daily lives, free of partisan politics.

Actually that's the problem with conservatives. They see everything in black and white...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAVnSV2o7T4

and life doesn't work that way.

You are reciting left wing talking points from within your liberal world view. Since I don't share your world view, I see things quite differently.

Actually the premise of my thread has nothing to do with bashing anyone. I was very specific in what I was looking for in the first post of this thread.

On capital hill and in the blogosphere, partisan politics is alive and well. However, I don't live in either of these places. Where I live, I see carefree people going about their daily lives, free of partisan politics.

I've bashed no one. Go back and read the post you quoted and you will see that I made the following comment:


There are many of us out there who don't much like liberal politics.


The key operative word is politics, not the people who hold the political view. I don't like liberal politics which is why I plan to vote for McCain. I'm betting you don't like conservative politics which is why you won't be voting for McCain.

I challenge you to find one of my posts where I have bashed Liberals or where I have bashed Obama. I puposely avoid denegrating anyone, and really do believe that America is a unified country. The partisan divisions we see in the blogosphere (right and left) are not representative of the mainstream America I live in.

What makes you think you know how conservatives view the world? What about me? Do you really believe you know anything about me or how I view the world?

You can only speak from within your liberal view of the world, thus anything you put forth in this regard would be colored by your worldview.

Do you doubt that every individual views the world differently? Do you truly believe, that there is a single valid world view and that all others are invalid? Do you believe that liberals live in the real world and that everyone else is clueless?

Food for thought.

I'll cede that I used a poor choice of words with "bashing" if you cede that you don't see "One America."

I won't be voting for McCain not simply because of his "conservative" stances on issues, but more because he has poor character. His personality has recently let me know that he is the last person that I would want as Commander in Chief... Believe me, I would rather pick 4 years of conservative peace (with regard to war internationally) than some ill-tempered/ill-principled war monger (which doesn't exist on "my side"). Which McCain do you support... the McCain of recent or the McCain of 2000? They're not the same person. Whatever you stand for that you think McCain stands for... I don't know how you can be so sure when he keeps straddling the fence. One of the primary reasons that I like President Obama is that he is pragmatic. He is a bipartisan leader. He is willing to compromise when necessary which displays strength of character. McCain on the other hand has no integrity. After picking such a poorly thought out running-mate, his most important first decision, I realize that he'll be even worse than Bush. At least Bush picked Cheney; and as much as I despise Cheney... at least the guy new what the VP does. We could go back and forth, but I think I might just take Randi's advice and "not take you seriously for taking McCain seriously." It became evident when you started making the statements that you see "one America" and that we only see left versus right. If you ask me... that's bashing the person and not just the policies.

I know reality has a well known liberal bias.





Again I know reality has a well known liberal bias.




For the last time, I know reality has a well known liberal bias.

What's ironic is that you are the one, who can't see that what you are asking for is for me to point to 3 McCain policy positions that are liberal. Obviously, they don't exist.

In your liberal view of the world, the only change you recognize is liberal. Thus, since McCain is not a liberal he can't possibly be a change candidate.

Based on what I've seen from you in the past, I can only assume that you will not be able to let go of this - "Peak is unable to list 3 liberal McCain policy positions, yet he continues to claim that McCain is an agent of change." You might think you are getting under my skin, but in acuality I find it kind of humorous.

Outside of the blogs and capital hill, most Americans go about their daily lives without giving politics a second thought.

I can only gage you as you have shown me by your writings, have you been lying?

you keep telling yourself that...

Only conservatives, only in a conservative viewpoint, yes liberals live in the real world, and no, not everyone else.

Given that I don't have a conservative view of the world, you just might be wrong about me.




Let's revise this a little and take the word liberal out of my statement.

You can only speak from within your view of the world, thus anything you put forth in this regard would be colored by your worldview.

This is fact. If you doubt it, go ahead and familiarize youself with the subject matter.



Given the tone and content of your posts, it doesn't surprise me that you believe that your view of the world is the only valid one. I was just looking to confirm my suspicions by asking you directly.

Given the tone and content of your posts, it doesn't surprise me that you believe that your view of the world is the only valid one. I was just looking to confirm my suspicions by asking you directly.

REFRAME it all you want, you cannot LIE ABOUT what the question really is and expect to get away with it. You can AVOID answering it, but every time you do, you continue to show that YOU and YOUR CANDIDATE are not wearing any clothes.

Look, I'M not the one spouting that McCain stands for "change in Washington." HE is and YOU seem to think that it is real just cuz he sez so!

McCain proposes CHANGE from the BROKEN WASHINGTON that is in right now. You know, the BUSH Washington, the REPUBLICAN WASHINGTON that's been there for the last 10-12 years.

I say it's a LIE and he plans NO CHANGE whatsoever, and HIS POLICIES AND POSITIONS PROVE THAT.

You claim that he DOES propose "change," although you cannot point to a SINGLE CHANGE policy or position from what's in there right now. I never said to show me LIBERAL policies he supports, although I find it interesting that you automatically equate the "change needed in Washington" as Liberal since obviously the Neo-con version of running the country didn't work. You know, there IS a MODERATE position he can take that would be REAL CHANGE, but I don't see any of THAT in his Bag 'o Tricks, either!

He acknowledges that Washington is BROKEN and proposes CHANGE and claims to want to FIX it, yet not one of his policies and proposals does that.


You lie.

He lies.

Apparently that's the way to answer direct questions.

Lie. Nice. So much for "conservative" politics!

Just because you give me your opinion doesn't mean it was persuasive enough to change mine. Does it make me a bad person for me not seeing your point of view, or you one for not seeing mine?

Given that you have ZERO credibility anymore, that's pretty funny!

"When in doubt, REFRAME THE DISCUSSION. When that doesn't work, LIE!"

Who are you really trying to convince?

What's ironic is that you are the one, who can't see that what you are asking for is for me to point to 3 McCain policy positions that are liberal. Obviously, they don't exist.

In your liberal view of the world, the only change you recognize is liberal. Thus, since McCain is not a liberal he can't possibly be a change candidate.

Based on what I've seen from you in the past, I can only assume that you will not be able to let go of this - "Peak is unable to list 3 liberal McCain policy positions, yet he continues to claim that McCain is an agent of change." You might think you are getting under my skin, but in acuality I find it kind of humorous.

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

With the following quote, I was responding directly to djtangman's diatribe in post #31.

You see two countries divided along political lines. I see one Country united.

I stand by these remarks. I find it hard to believe that you also wouldn't see this unity of purpose in your every day life. When you are out mowing your lawn and you wave to your neighbor, do you judge him because of his politics? Do you even know or care what his politics are? When you run to the grocery store for a quart of milk, do you immediately draw up battle lines between you and all of those you encounter?

Outside of the blogs and capital hill, most Americans go about their daily lives without giving politics a second thought.

Whatever your reasons are for voting for Obama, my reasons for voting for McCain remain unchanged. If you have any questions regarding what those reasons are, you can go back and review my political leanings signature.

Are you referring to complacency? I don't subscribe to claiming political leanings even though they can be attributed more to one party or another. I stand my ideological beliefs and have debates with anyone whenever the opportunity arises. It has nothing to do with battle. It has to do with information. You can try to claim you see One America in all these simple things.. milking the cow and logging and hunting the deer and gathering the seeds... it has nothing to do with seeing One America. I see a person doing regular day to day things and know that that person could be racist, could be socialist, could be conservative or liberal... the fact that I treat all people the same is me following my own ideology. "Treat others as you would like to be treated." The whole premise of that statement assumes that a person willing to stand up for their beliefs, does so simply because they don't see one America. You do realize that diversity of thought still existed in this One America even when two consciousnesses existed. What dt appears to be referencing is the existence of a political ideology that only cares for self (the neocon on a further extreme than conservatism in general) versus politics where there were two or more ideologies battling for what was believed to be common good whether it was a faulty ideology or not. It is evident in the relentless vetoing as McCain promises to follow... hence the necessity for a veto proof majority in congress. Rather than protecting the constitution, it has been demolished to decrease oversight and balance of power... and increase intrusion on American households. There are two America's in that sense... Just like there are two within any fascist state that eventually leads to revolt. The more this neo-conservative demolishes govt. by defunding to reduce oversight, increase executive power, defy constitutional law, increase that gap between the wealthy and poor, and weaken our military while trying to accomplish every goal through it; the more there will be a realization of two countries in which revolt is inevitable. And that same scenario where you just see a neighbor mowing a lawn... that neighbor may see a former friend turned enemy in battle. Repubs are trying to preface a loss by President Obama with the illustration of race riots; it will be nothing of the sort. If he loses by what anyone considers fraud, and the proper procedures are not followed to rectify the situation, I predict riots and revolt by the non-complacent young and old that see their futures being stripped away from them.


Disclaimer: I am in no way, form or fashion attempting to incite violence based on presidential election results. This is purely a conjectural analysis of what may occur.

Yeah... I don't need to reread your political leanings because despite President Obama seeming to be a better choice considering most of your leanings, and his willingness to compromise... What you should do is include comparative weight on those ideologies... A scale of how important each belief is compared to another.

Someone keeps mentioning how McCain will be more bipartisan, so I think this is an interesting supplement to the conversation

McCain Calls For Bipartisan Cooperation On Financial Bailout, But Refuses To Talk With Democrats

On Wednesday afternoon, John McCain claimed to want to put partisanship aside to focus his attention on the financial crisis. “We must meet as Americans, not as Democrats or Republicans, and we must meet until this crisis is resolved,” he said. Yesterday, McCain’s top aide Mark Salter stressed that McCain was “calling members on both sides.”

But throughout his short involvement in the negotiations over the past few days, McCain has talked almost exclusively with Republicans. The New York Times reports that McCain aides “released a list of people they said Mr. McCain had called from his campaign headquarters on Saturday.” Among them were:

President Bush
Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH)
Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ)
House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH)
House Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-MO)

The list included “nine House Republicans.” No Democrats were listed.

The only time McCain seemed to interact with Democrats was during the bipartisan meeting at the White House on Thursday. During that meeting, McCain “played a shockingly passive role,” sitting silently for 40 minutes, and refusing to discuss his position on the bailout.

On ABC’s This Week, McCain said he came back to Washington DC to get involved in the bailout negotiations. “I came back because I wasn’t going to phone it in,” he said. And yet, McCain did just that yesterday. He “did not go to Capitol Hill after coming back to Washington.” instead opting to phone it in. Salter explained, “He can effectively do what he needs to do by phone.” McCain did have time, however, to take in dinner at an upscale DC restaurant with Joe Lieberman (I-CT). (HT: TP reader ME)
------------------------------------------------------

If the only bipartisanship McCain an participate in is photo-ops, he's going to need to try harder.

February 2, 2006

The Honorable John McCain
United States Senate
241 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Dear John:

Thank you for inviting me to participate in the meeting yesterday to discuss lobbying and ethics reform proposals currently before the Senate. I appreciate your willingness to reach out to me and several other Senate Democrats to discuss what should be done to restore public confidence in the way that Congress conducts its business. The discussion clearly underscored the difficult challenge facing Congress.

You and many in the Democratic Caucus have played a major role in reform efforts in the Senate. In fact, the Indian Affairs Committee hearings you led were instrumental in promoting public awareness of the culture of corruption that has permeated the nation's capital.

As you know, Senator Harry Reid and others in the Democratic Caucus have taken an important step by introducing S. 2180, the Honest Leadership Act, which imposes many of the same disclosure requirements for lobbyists that you have proposed, while also strengthening enforcement, eliminating "pay to play" schemes, and imposing more restrictive rules on meals, gifts, and travel that Members and their staff can receive from special interests that advocate before Congress. This bill, which now has the support of 40 members of the Democratic Caucus, represents a significant step in addressing many of the worst aspects of corruption that have come to light as a result of the Justice Department investigation of Jack Abramoff.

I know you have expressed an interest in creating a task force to further study and discuss these matters, but I and others in the Democratic Caucus believe the more effective and timely course is to allow the committees of jurisdiction to roll up their sleeves and get to work on writing ethics and lobbying reform legislation that a majority of the Senate can support. Committee consideration of these matters through the normal course will ensure that these issues are discussed in a public forum and that those within Congress, as well as those on the outside, can express their views, ensuring a thorough review of this matter.

Given the state of affairs in Washington, we have a historic opportunity to make fundamental changes in the way our government operates so that the actions we take as public officials are responsive and transparent to the American people. Thank you again for your interest in this important matter.

Sincerely,

Barack Obama
United States Senator

February 6, 2006

The Honorable Barack Obama
United States Senate
SH-713
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Obama:

I would like to apologize to you for assuming that your private assurances to me regarding your desire to cooperate in our efforts to negotiate bipartisan lobbying reform legislation were sincere. When you approached me and insisted that despite your leadership's preference to use the issue to gain a political advantage in the 2006 elections, you were personally committed to achieving a result that would reflect credit on the entire Senate and offer the country a better example of political leadership, I concluded your professed concern for the institution and the public interest was genuine and admirable. Thank you for disabusing me of such notions with your letter to me dated February 2, 2006, which explained your decision to withdraw from our bipartisan discussions. I'm embarrassed to admit that after all these years in politics I failed to interpret your previous assurances as typical rhetorical gloss routinely used in politics to make self-interested partisan posturing appear more noble. Again, sorry for the confusion, but please be assured I won't make the same mistake again.

As you know, the Majority Leader has asked Chairman Collins to hold hearings and mark up a bill for floor consideration in early March. I fully support such timely action and I am confident that, together with Senator Lieberman, the Committee on Governmental Affairs will report out a meaningful, bipartisan bill.

You commented in your letter about my "interest in creating a task force to further study" this issue, as if to suggest I support delaying the consideration of much-needed reforms rather than allowing the committees of jurisdiction to hold hearings on the matter. Nothing could be further from the truth. The timely findings of a bipartisan working group could be very helpful to the committee in formulating legislation that will be reported to the full Senate. Since you are new to the Senate, you may not be aware of the fact that I have always supported fully the regular committee and legislative process in the Senate, and routinely urge Committee Chairmen to hold hearings on important issues. In fact, I urged Senator Collins to schedule a hearing upon the Senate's return in January.

Furthermore, I have consistently maintained that any lobbying reform proposal be bipartisan. The bill Senators Joe Lieberman and Bill Nelson and I have introduced is evidence of that commitment as is my insistence that members of both parties be included in meetings to develop the legislation that will ultimately be considered on the Senate floor. As I explained in a recent letter to Senator Reid, and have publicly said many times, the American people do not see this as just a Republican problem or just a Democratic problem. They see it as yet another run-of-the-mill Washington scandal, and they expect it will generate just another round of partisan gamesmanship and posturing. Senator Lieberman and I, and many other members of this body, hope to exceed the public's low expectations. We view this as an opportunity to bring transparency and accountability to the Congress, and, most importantly, to show the public that both parties will work together to address our failings.

As I noted, I initially believed you shared that goal. But I understand how important the opportunity to lead your party's effort to exploit this issue must seem to a freshman Senator, and I hold no hard feelings over your earlier disingenuousness. Again, I have been around long enough to appreciate that in politics the public interest isn't always a priority for every one of us. Good luck to you, Senator.

Sincerely,

John McCain
United States Senate

I don't have to convince anyone. Every time you fail to provide proof of McCain's claim as a change agent, and then try to reframe the question to "run away," you do that all by yer lonesome!

Enjoy!

Someone keeps mentioning how McCain will be more bipartisan, so I think this is an interesting supplement to the conversation

McCain Calls For Bipartisan Cooperation On Financial Bailout, But Refuses To Talk With Democrats

On Wednesday afternoon, John McCain claimed to want to put partisanship aside to focus his attention on the financial crisis. “We must meet as Americans, not as Democrats or Republicans, and we must meet until this crisis is resolved,” he said. Yesterday, McCain’s top aide Mark Salter stressed that McCain was “calling members on both sides.”

But throughout his short involvement in the negotiations over the past few days, McCain has talked almost exclusively with Republicans. The New York Times reports that McCain aides “released a list of people they said Mr. McCain had called from his campaign headquarters on Saturday.” Among them were:

President Bush
Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH)
Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ)
House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH)
House Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-MO)

The list included “nine House Republicans.” No Democrats were listed.

The only time McCain seemed to interact with Democrats was during the bipartisan meeting at the White House on Thursday. During that meeting, McCain “played a shockingly passive role,” sitting silently for 40 minutes, and refusing to discuss his position on the bailout.

On ABC’s This Week, McCain said he came back to Washington DC to get involved in the bailout negotiations. “I came back because I wasn’t going to phone it in,” he said. And yet, McCain did just that yesterday. He “did not go to Capitol Hill after coming back to Washington.” instead opting to phone it in. Salter explained, “He can effectively do what he needs to do by phone.” McCain did have time, however, to take in dinner at an upscale DC restaurant with Joe Lieberman (I-CT). (HT: TP reader ME)
------------------------------------------------------

If the only bipartisanship McCain an participate in is photo-ops, he's going to need to try harder.

You assume that McCain was snubbing Democrats rather than the other way around. Harry Reid made it very clear from the beginning that McCain wasn't welcome.

As evidenced by the exchange of letters between him and Obama, it's clear McCain has no problem with showing it when he feels he's being snubbed.

That exchange took place 2 years ago and has no bearing on recent events. I firmly believe McCain's recent intentions were honorable, but went askew following Obama's choice not to participate and Reid's public snub of McCain.

You choose to blame this on McCain, I don't. Its just another area where we will have to disagree.

Really? Senator Hothead's well documented short fuse has no bearing on the likeliness of your storyline?

Really? Obama didn't participate in the bipatisan meetings that he was invited to by GWB? We already know that McCain's race back to DC was a less-than-genuine attempt to make it look like he was going to burn the midnight oil with the rest of the congressmen working out the negotiations. If neither men ended up back on Capitol Hill after the debate, then McCain deserves to take flack for his theatrics. If it turns out Obama was there and McCain wasn't, then McCain will be scrambling to hide from the media for a few days, hoping his blatant poitical posturing doesn't get too much attention.