maverick- a lone dissenter, as an intellectual, an artist, or a politician, who takes an independent stand apart from his or her associates.
pit bull- One who behaves in a markedly aggressive or ruthless manner.
The whole idea of a maverick means that you go out on your own and do what you want to do. John McCain can tell everyone that he is a maverick, but when it comes down to it he's voted for his parties politics and policies NINETY-ONE percent of the time. 91%!! To me that is a pretty high majority of going along with the crowd. He can say the word maverick all he wants, but the fact of the matter is he is just a Bush/Rove clone.
As far as Palin being a pit bull I believe it. That's probably why there is an investigation against her in Alaska right now. A pit bull bites and doesn't let go. I can see Sarah Palin being the kind of woman who has made up her mind and isn't going to change it.
So, what's the option here? Obama is the option. He's got a plan. He's clearly stated what that plan is and it's NOT the same thing that we've seen for the last 8 years. He doesn't need some snazzy nickname like maverick to prove that he's got a vision and he has the plan to make it come true to the benefit of us all.
I'm just sayin.
Friday, September 05, 2008
Thursday, September 04, 2008
And now for some humor...
This comes from one of my favorite blogs. The Sneeze (which by the way The TREE BRAIN IS BACK!! WooT!)
"Reports came in that my 8-year-old was secretly chatting up some ladies earlier in the day. Proud and curious, I summon him to the bedroom for details.
"Mommy told me she took you and your brother to the park today and you were talking to some girls."
"Yeah."
"She said you were hanging out with them on top of the slide?"
"Yeah."
"Nice! What did you say to them?"
"I was telling them that you have a hairy butt."
"..."
This brief moment of silence is broken by the hard laughter of his obnoxious 4-year-old brother.
"And what did the girls say??"
"They said their dad's have hairy butts, too."
I suppose this once again proves the old adage: "The quickest way to a woman's heart is through your father's swampy ass."
I'm not thrilled about this conversation, but I've always had a hard time talking to strange girls. If my buttocks are an ice-breaker, have at it, kid."
Steve is a nut.
"Reports came in that my 8-year-old was secretly chatting up some ladies earlier in the day. Proud and curious, I summon him to the bedroom for details.
"Mommy told me she took you and your brother to the park today and you were talking to some girls."
"Yeah."
"She said you were hanging out with them on top of the slide?"
"Yeah."
"Nice! What did you say to them?"
"I was telling them that you have a hairy butt."
"..."
This brief moment of silence is broken by the hard laughter of his obnoxious 4-year-old brother.
"And what did the girls say??"
"They said their dad's have hairy butts, too."
I suppose this once again proves the old adage: "The quickest way to a woman's heart is through your father's swampy ass."
I'm not thrilled about this conversation, but I've always had a hard time talking to strange girls. If my buttocks are an ice-breaker, have at it, kid."
Steve is a nut.
Just the facts
The McCain/Palin camp has said a lot of things recently that just didn't add up to me. Particularly about his tax plan. So, I decided I'd find out if what they were saying was legit or if it was a pile of poop. Well, put on your boots folks. Here's what I found at FactCheck.org (a nonpartisan, non-profit "consumer" advocate).
A New Stitch in a Bad Pattern
A McCain ad wrongly claims Obama plans "painful tax increases" for working families. And who's talking about deficits?
Summary
McCain's new ad puts another stitch in what we've called his pattern of deceit on Obama's tax plan. This one claims Obama and congressional Democrats plan to push forward "painful tax increases on working American families" and that they will bring about "years of deficits," "no balanced budgets" and "billions in new government spending." The ad is plain wrong about higher taxes on working families. In fact, Obama's economic plan would produce a tax cut for the majority of American households, with middle-income earners benefiting most. As for "years of deficits," exactly the same claim could be made about McCain's program. It's unlikely either Obama or McCain would balance the budget, and both are projected to increase the debt by trillions.
Analysis
We've already reported on at least three other ads, in both Spanish and English, from Sen. John McCain's campaign that distort his rival's tax policy. The ads claim that, for example, Democratic Sen. Barack Obama would raise taxes "on the sale of your home" and that he has a "history of raising taxes" and that he wanted to raise taxes on "families" making just $42,000 a year.Claims like these have led us to say that McCain's campaign is engaging in a "pattern of deceit" when it comes to describing Obama's tax plan. This most recent ad fits right into the template.Tax Counter-Spin
The ad says Obama and “out of touch Congressional leaders” plan to implement “painful tax increases on working American families,” and it shows an image of a family presumably upset about an impending tax increase. But, as we've reported numerous times, Obama proposes a tax cut for the vast majority of households.
John McCain 2008 Ad:"Expensive Plans"
Crowd: Obama, Obama…Announcer: Take away the crowds, the chants. All that’s left are costly words. Barack Obama and out of touch congressional leaders have expensive plans. Billions in government spending, years of deficits, no balanced budgets, and painful tax increases on working American families. They’re ready to tax, ready to spend, but not ready to lead.
We spoke with Len Berman, director of the nonpartisan Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, which has produced one of the most authoritative analyses of the two candidates’ tax plans. When we asked him if Obama’s claim that he would “cut taxes for 95 percent of all working families” was true, Berman told FactCheck.org that it was “consistent with our estimates.” Overall, the TPC found that Obama’s plan would produce a tax cut for 81.3 percent of all households, and a cut for 95.5 percent of all households with children.Under Obama's plan, the TPC estimates that people (or couples) making between $37,595 and $66,354 a year would see an average savings of $1,118 on their taxes. Under McCain's plan, on the other hand, those same individuals would save $325 on average — $793 less than the average savings under Obama's plan.
Put It on Our Tab
The ad also claims that Obama and congressional Democrats would bring about "years of deficits." But (and we've reported this before, too), the fact is both candidates' economic plans would fail to bring an end to deficit spending, and by that measure, McCain's is worse than Obama's. According to the TPC analysis, Obama's tax plan would increase the debt by $3.5 trillion by 2018, while McCain's plan would bring about a projected $5 trillion increase in the same time frame. The TPC also found that:
Tax Policy Center (Aug 28): Neither candidate’s plan would significantly increase economic growth unless offset by spending cuts or tax increases that the campaigns have not specified.
The Obama campaign maintains that the Tax Policy Center's estimates don't account for Obama's proposed spending cuts, including things like ending the Iraq war. But those cuts will not come close to balancing the budget, and Obama has avoided promising a balanced budget during his first term.
McCain, however, has said he will balance the budget by 2013. Experts remain skeptical. In early July, The New York Times quoted Robert L. Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition — a bipartisan fiscal responsibility advocacy group — as saying the claim was "unlikely":
Robert L. Bixby (as quoted by The New York Times, July 8): It’s feasible to balance the budget by 2013, but very unlikely under the policies Senator McCain has proposed. The spending cuts are far too vague to be counted on for significant savings and, even if they were more specific, I can’t see how they would come close to offsetting the level of tax cuts he recommends.
McCain senior economic adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin sent The Washington Post's editorial board a copy of McCain's plan in support of the candidate's claim. But the board concluded, in its July 14 editorial, that the plan was "not credible."
So the ad's claims about deficit spending and "no balanced budgets"? They could be applied just as easily to McCain as to Obama and the Dems. And we're not sure McCain really wants to go there.
-by Emi Kolawole
A New Stitch in a Bad Pattern
A McCain ad wrongly claims Obama plans "painful tax increases" for working families. And who's talking about deficits?
Summary
McCain's new ad puts another stitch in what we've called his pattern of deceit on Obama's tax plan. This one claims Obama and congressional Democrats plan to push forward "painful tax increases on working American families" and that they will bring about "years of deficits," "no balanced budgets" and "billions in new government spending." The ad is plain wrong about higher taxes on working families. In fact, Obama's economic plan would produce a tax cut for the majority of American households, with middle-income earners benefiting most. As for "years of deficits," exactly the same claim could be made about McCain's program. It's unlikely either Obama or McCain would balance the budget, and both are projected to increase the debt by trillions.
Analysis
We've already reported on at least three other ads, in both Spanish and English, from Sen. John McCain's campaign that distort his rival's tax policy. The ads claim that, for example, Democratic Sen. Barack Obama would raise taxes "on the sale of your home" and that he has a "history of raising taxes" and that he wanted to raise taxes on "families" making just $42,000 a year.Claims like these have led us to say that McCain's campaign is engaging in a "pattern of deceit" when it comes to describing Obama's tax plan. This most recent ad fits right into the template.Tax Counter-Spin
The ad says Obama and “out of touch Congressional leaders” plan to implement “painful tax increases on working American families,” and it shows an image of a family presumably upset about an impending tax increase. But, as we've reported numerous times, Obama proposes a tax cut for the vast majority of households.
John McCain 2008 Ad:"Expensive Plans"
Crowd: Obama, Obama…Announcer: Take away the crowds, the chants. All that’s left are costly words. Barack Obama and out of touch congressional leaders have expensive plans. Billions in government spending, years of deficits, no balanced budgets, and painful tax increases on working American families. They’re ready to tax, ready to spend, but not ready to lead.
We spoke with Len Berman, director of the nonpartisan Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, which has produced one of the most authoritative analyses of the two candidates’ tax plans. When we asked him if Obama’s claim that he would “cut taxes for 95 percent of all working families” was true, Berman told FactCheck.org that it was “consistent with our estimates.” Overall, the TPC found that Obama’s plan would produce a tax cut for 81.3 percent of all households, and a cut for 95.5 percent of all households with children.Under Obama's plan, the TPC estimates that people (or couples) making between $37,595 and $66,354 a year would see an average savings of $1,118 on their taxes. Under McCain's plan, on the other hand, those same individuals would save $325 on average — $793 less than the average savings under Obama's plan.
Put It on Our Tab
The ad also claims that Obama and congressional Democrats would bring about "years of deficits." But (and we've reported this before, too), the fact is both candidates' economic plans would fail to bring an end to deficit spending, and by that measure, McCain's is worse than Obama's. According to the TPC analysis, Obama's tax plan would increase the debt by $3.5 trillion by 2018, while McCain's plan would bring about a projected $5 trillion increase in the same time frame. The TPC also found that:
Tax Policy Center (Aug 28): Neither candidate’s plan would significantly increase economic growth unless offset by spending cuts or tax increases that the campaigns have not specified.
The Obama campaign maintains that the Tax Policy Center's estimates don't account for Obama's proposed spending cuts, including things like ending the Iraq war. But those cuts will not come close to balancing the budget, and Obama has avoided promising a balanced budget during his first term.
McCain, however, has said he will balance the budget by 2013. Experts remain skeptical. In early July, The New York Times quoted Robert L. Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition — a bipartisan fiscal responsibility advocacy group — as saying the claim was "unlikely":
Robert L. Bixby (as quoted by The New York Times, July 8): It’s feasible to balance the budget by 2013, but very unlikely under the policies Senator McCain has proposed. The spending cuts are far too vague to be counted on for significant savings and, even if they were more specific, I can’t see how they would come close to offsetting the level of tax cuts he recommends.
McCain senior economic adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin sent The Washington Post's editorial board a copy of McCain's plan in support of the candidate's claim. But the board concluded, in its July 14 editorial, that the plan was "not credible."
So the ad's claims about deficit spending and "no balanced budgets"? They could be applied just as easily to McCain as to Obama and the Dems. And we're not sure McCain really wants to go there.
-by Emi Kolawole
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
McCain- the Vet
To hear him tell it being a veteran is what gives McCain the political prowess to lead this country in the time of war. If that's the case then why is he so dead set against helping those men and women who have served this country in the Iraq war? Why has he repeatedly voted against legislation and spending that would assist those veterans with health care, tax cuts and education for reentry into the work force? I don't know, but here's the article that shows that he's not for any veteran except for one- HIMSELF! Thanks to Mickey for bringing this to my attention.
"McCain's record on veterans' issues is shocking and awful.
At a town hall meeting in Denver in early July, a Vietnam veteran asked presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) why he had opposed increasing healthcare for veterans whenever Congress had taken up the issue over the past six years. McCain virtually ignored the man's question, dissembling his opposition to an updated GI Bill for veterans. After the questioner challenged McCain's response, the senator reacted as he usually does when queried beyond his comfort level: He got visibly angry.
Because McCain is running for president almost solely on his biography as a war hero, he can't - and won't - allow the slightest doubt to linger about his dedication to soldiers both past and present. It didn't matter that the vet simply wanted to know how McCain - himself a former soldier and prisoner of war - could oppose important healthcare legislation for veterans. In fact, he didn't even ask McCain about the GI Bill that he opposed, which had been supported by a bipartisan group of 75 senators, including Republican veterans Chuck Hagel (Neb.) and John Warner (Va.).
Most notably, McCain also testily responded to his inquisitor that he had "received every award from every vets organization."
The problem is, not only is that assertion not true, but McCain's record on veterans' issues paints a picture of a man who has been willfully negligent when it comes to providing for his former brothers and sisters in arms.
As Iraq War veteran and former Democratic congressional candidate Paul Hackett says, "Here is a guy who touts himself as a friend of veterans, but his history shows just the opposite. How can someone who cares about our men and women in the armed services vote against the GI Bill or veterans' healthcare?" Dying on the vine
In 2005, Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii), now chair of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, introduced legislation that would have increased veterans' medical care by $2.8 billion in 2006. He also introduced another bill that would have set aside $10 million for "readjustment counseling services" - a program to provide a wide range of counseling, outreach and referral services for those returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, to ease their readjustment back into society. (This program was started in 1979 for Vietnam veterans, so one would think McCain is quite familiar with it.)
But McCain - and other Republicans who are more concerned with using government funds for tax cuts for multimillionaires or for corporate subsidies to oil and gas companies - voted this effort down.
The following year, Akaka requested $1.5 billion for veterans' medical care and an additional $430 million for the Department of Veteran Affairs for outpatient care and treatment for veterans. But, once again, McCain voted against these proposals, while offering no measures of his own, and without pushing his party to help U.S. veterans.
In 2005, Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Patty Murray (D-Wash.) saw their respective veteran amendments killed. These amendments would have funded additional medical care and readjustment counseling for Iraq veterans with mental illness, post-traumatic stress disorder or substance abuse disorder. McCain voted "no" on both.
In 2005, and again in 2006, Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) proposed legislation that would have indexed veterans' healthcare benefits to take into account the annual changes in inflation and veterans' population. She proposed paying for the indexing by restoring the pre-2001 top tax rate for income more than $1 million, closing corporate tax loopholes and delaying tax cuts for the wealthy. One guess as to how McCain voted.
In early 2006, Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) proposed an amendment for additional funding to shore up the collapsing infrastructures at veterans' hospitals around the country. The bill would have mandated a minor rollback in the capital gains tax cuts that the Bush administration has given to the richest one-fifth of 1 percent of Americans. McCain, presumably more concerned about the 100-plus lobbyists associated with his campaign than the health of veterans, opposed this amendment.
Not long after, in February 2007, the Washington Post exposed horror stories about the crumbling infrastructure at Washington, D.C.'s Walter Reed Army Medical Center.
In February 2006, Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) sponsored an amendment that would have rolled back capital gains tax cuts so that much-needed equipment for troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan could be purchased. McCain and the Republican leadership made sure those tax cuts stayed in place, and, as a result, the troops didn't get what they needed.
Finally, in June 2006, Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) authored a bill - S. Amdt. 4442 - "to require the redeployment of United States Armed Forces from Iraq in order to further a political solution in Iraq, encourage the people of Iraq to provide for their own security, and achieve victory in the war on terror."
It received 13 votes. Needless to say, McCain's wasn't one of them.
McCain was also noticeably absent on two measures that members of both parties should be able to embrace.
The Homes for Heroes Act - which Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) introduced in April 2007 - would have helped provide housing for low-income veterans and helped tackle the problem of homelessness among America's military veterans. The bill died, though the House overwhelmingly passed a similar bill in July; its companion version still awaits a new vote in the Senate.
The Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2007 - introduced by Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) - restores the old GI Bill and provides returning troops with the more robust educational benefits enjoyed by the men and women who served in the three decades following World War II. Although this bill did not initially make it to vote, it was incorporated into the new GI bill that the Senate - absent McCain, who was at a fundraiser in Caliornia - passed in May. Failing scorecard
The Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA), the country's largest Iraq veterans' group, looked at 155 Senate votes since Sept. 11, 2001, on legislation that "affected troops, veterans or military families." It then awarded each senator a grade by comparing his or her votes to IAVA's view of what constitutes effective support for active troops, veterans and their families.
No senator received an "A" grade. Thirteen senators - all Democrats - received an "A-." The worst grade received by a Senate Democrat was higher than the best grade granted to a Republican. Obama, for his part, got a B+.
McCain received a "D."
In fact, IAVA founder and Executive Director Paul Rieckhoff says that "there has been no bigger obstacle to passage of the GI Bill than Senator McCain. Even though he'd now like to claim credit for it, he didn't even show up. He thought it was more important to be in California for a fundraiser."
In 2007, the Disabled American Veterans (DAV), after surveying McCain's votes on healthcare issues for its 1.3 million members, gave him only 20 percent. By contrast, DAV gave 194 Democrats and 7 Republicans a perfect 100 percent. Even by GOP standards, McCain's performance suffers.
Often times, his is a faithful vote for party above principle. This party-line voting pattern suggests that McCain is a legislative follower - if he bothers to show up at all.
In a 2006 Washington Post column by David Ignatius, McCain described his loyalty to Bush as being so profound that he said he wouldn't rule out giving up his Senate seat to become secretary of defense if Donald Rumsfeld were to leave.
"I would have to assess where I can be most effective," said McCain. "It's awfully hard to say no to the president of the United States."
McCain's record makes that abundantly clear.
--------
Editor's note: This article is adapted from "The Real McCain: Why Conservatives Don't Trust Him and Why Independents Shouldn't" (PoliPoint Press).
"McCain's record on veterans' issues is shocking and awful.
At a town hall meeting in Denver in early July, a Vietnam veteran asked presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) why he had opposed increasing healthcare for veterans whenever Congress had taken up the issue over the past six years. McCain virtually ignored the man's question, dissembling his opposition to an updated GI Bill for veterans. After the questioner challenged McCain's response, the senator reacted as he usually does when queried beyond his comfort level: He got visibly angry.
Because McCain is running for president almost solely on his biography as a war hero, he can't - and won't - allow the slightest doubt to linger about his dedication to soldiers both past and present. It didn't matter that the vet simply wanted to know how McCain - himself a former soldier and prisoner of war - could oppose important healthcare legislation for veterans. In fact, he didn't even ask McCain about the GI Bill that he opposed, which had been supported by a bipartisan group of 75 senators, including Republican veterans Chuck Hagel (Neb.) and John Warner (Va.).
Most notably, McCain also testily responded to his inquisitor that he had "received every award from every vets organization."
The problem is, not only is that assertion not true, but McCain's record on veterans' issues paints a picture of a man who has been willfully negligent when it comes to providing for his former brothers and sisters in arms.
As Iraq War veteran and former Democratic congressional candidate Paul Hackett says, "Here is a guy who touts himself as a friend of veterans, but his history shows just the opposite. How can someone who cares about our men and women in the armed services vote against the GI Bill or veterans' healthcare?" Dying on the vine
In 2005, Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii), now chair of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, introduced legislation that would have increased veterans' medical care by $2.8 billion in 2006. He also introduced another bill that would have set aside $10 million for "readjustment counseling services" - a program to provide a wide range of counseling, outreach and referral services for those returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, to ease their readjustment back into society. (This program was started in 1979 for Vietnam veterans, so one would think McCain is quite familiar with it.)
But McCain - and other Republicans who are more concerned with using government funds for tax cuts for multimillionaires or for corporate subsidies to oil and gas companies - voted this effort down.
The following year, Akaka requested $1.5 billion for veterans' medical care and an additional $430 million for the Department of Veteran Affairs for outpatient care and treatment for veterans. But, once again, McCain voted against these proposals, while offering no measures of his own, and without pushing his party to help U.S. veterans.
In 2005, Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Patty Murray (D-Wash.) saw their respective veteran amendments killed. These amendments would have funded additional medical care and readjustment counseling for Iraq veterans with mental illness, post-traumatic stress disorder or substance abuse disorder. McCain voted "no" on both.
In 2005, and again in 2006, Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) proposed legislation that would have indexed veterans' healthcare benefits to take into account the annual changes in inflation and veterans' population. She proposed paying for the indexing by restoring the pre-2001 top tax rate for income more than $1 million, closing corporate tax loopholes and delaying tax cuts for the wealthy. One guess as to how McCain voted.
In early 2006, Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) proposed an amendment for additional funding to shore up the collapsing infrastructures at veterans' hospitals around the country. The bill would have mandated a minor rollback in the capital gains tax cuts that the Bush administration has given to the richest one-fifth of 1 percent of Americans. McCain, presumably more concerned about the 100-plus lobbyists associated with his campaign than the health of veterans, opposed this amendment.
Not long after, in February 2007, the Washington Post exposed horror stories about the crumbling infrastructure at Washington, D.C.'s Walter Reed Army Medical Center.
In February 2006, Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) sponsored an amendment that would have rolled back capital gains tax cuts so that much-needed equipment for troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan could be purchased. McCain and the Republican leadership made sure those tax cuts stayed in place, and, as a result, the troops didn't get what they needed.
Finally, in June 2006, Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) authored a bill - S. Amdt. 4442 - "to require the redeployment of United States Armed Forces from Iraq in order to further a political solution in Iraq, encourage the people of Iraq to provide for their own security, and achieve victory in the war on terror."
It received 13 votes. Needless to say, McCain's wasn't one of them.
McCain was also noticeably absent on two measures that members of both parties should be able to embrace.
The Homes for Heroes Act - which Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) introduced in April 2007 - would have helped provide housing for low-income veterans and helped tackle the problem of homelessness among America's military veterans. The bill died, though the House overwhelmingly passed a similar bill in July; its companion version still awaits a new vote in the Senate.
The Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2007 - introduced by Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) - restores the old GI Bill and provides returning troops with the more robust educational benefits enjoyed by the men and women who served in the three decades following World War II. Although this bill did not initially make it to vote, it was incorporated into the new GI bill that the Senate - absent McCain, who was at a fundraiser in Caliornia - passed in May. Failing scorecard
The Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA), the country's largest Iraq veterans' group, looked at 155 Senate votes since Sept. 11, 2001, on legislation that "affected troops, veterans or military families." It then awarded each senator a grade by comparing his or her votes to IAVA's view of what constitutes effective support for active troops, veterans and their families.
No senator received an "A" grade. Thirteen senators - all Democrats - received an "A-." The worst grade received by a Senate Democrat was higher than the best grade granted to a Republican. Obama, for his part, got a B+.
McCain received a "D."
In fact, IAVA founder and Executive Director Paul Rieckhoff says that "there has been no bigger obstacle to passage of the GI Bill than Senator McCain. Even though he'd now like to claim credit for it, he didn't even show up. He thought it was more important to be in California for a fundraiser."
In 2007, the Disabled American Veterans (DAV), after surveying McCain's votes on healthcare issues for its 1.3 million members, gave him only 20 percent. By contrast, DAV gave 194 Democrats and 7 Republicans a perfect 100 percent. Even by GOP standards, McCain's performance suffers.
Often times, his is a faithful vote for party above principle. This party-line voting pattern suggests that McCain is a legislative follower - if he bothers to show up at all.
In a 2006 Washington Post column by David Ignatius, McCain described his loyalty to Bush as being so profound that he said he wouldn't rule out giving up his Senate seat to become secretary of defense if Donald Rumsfeld were to leave.
"I would have to assess where I can be most effective," said McCain. "It's awfully hard to say no to the president of the United States."
McCain's record makes that abundantly clear.
--------
Editor's note: This article is adapted from "The Real McCain: Why Conservatives Don't Trust Him and Why Independents Shouldn't" (PoliPoint Press).
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
