Update: McCain Selects Gov. Sarah Palin as Running Mate

He did vote 90% in 2007 I'm talking about the entire 6 years.

Exactly, that's the key point.

You can come up with statistics to say whatever you want, 83% of all people know that. Count the democratic campaign amongst that 83%!

McCain has voted consistently with Bush most recently in 2007 and kind of fallen in line with him. But Bush was right on the troop surge (gasp, did he say Bush was right?).

McCain opposed Bush a lot more often early on in Bush's presidency, back when Bush was doing almost all of the damage that earned him his 29% approval rating. Instead of looking at McCain and Bush over the entire two terms, the democrats are simply framing a soundbyte by taking one year of data out of context.

Statisticians have a word for practices like this: biased sampling.

Gee, imagine that, the Democrats might produce a stat biased towards themselves. And yet so many true blues buy it hook line and sinker without even a thought. "How different can Bush and McCain be if they vote together 90% of the time." Gee, thanks for putting careful thought into who you plan to vote for, you're doing a true service to the United States of America.

Stop with the surge b.s. General Eric Shinseki (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F06E2DA133CF93BA15751C0A9659C8B 63&scp=1&sq=Eric+Schmitt+Shinseki&st=nyt) and every sane fucking person on the planet knew you couldn't invade and maintain the peace with what we went in with (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/12/washington/12shinseki.html). Now they're giving us this b.s. line about the surge as if we are so stupid as to forget how retarded the cocksuckers are and continue to be. To those who say "we're fixing Rumsfeld's mistakes, the surge is working" you offend sensibility.


The truth on Iraq from the elephant's mouth:

8ieHwOm4ljA

why don't reporters do their job, and ask the tough questions? anyone that watches that video, and still votes for John McCain, deserves what ever they get. may god bless America( don't i sound like im running for office?) that mans judgement is suspect, at best

Dude, wait, what?

Let me get this straight, we're criticizing them (and rightly so) for not going in with enough troops to begin with. Then when they do put more troops in and they make progress, we're not going to give them credit?

If Obama had his way, the surge never would have happened, we would have just come home. In fact, even after the surge worked, he still suggests we come home. That's equally stubborn and bull-headed as Bush was when he got on the carrier and declared mission accomplished.

I just have a problem with your logic, you're not applying it consistently.

No you don't get credit...you can still get an F in a class even if you pass the final (typically happens when you drink all semester long and only show up for finals). Even worse, if you cheat during the final and you get caught you face expulsion.

If Obama had his way we wouldn't have invaded and if he did invade he would have competence on his side which typically results in better decision making.

No you don't get credit...you can still get an F in a class even if you pass the final (typically happens when you drink all semester long and only show up for finals). Even worse, if you cheat during the final and you get caught you face expulsion.

If Obama had his way we wouldn't have invaded and if he did invade he would have competence on his side which typically results in better decision making.

That makes no sense whatsoever.

Imagine: The Redskins turn the ball over three times in the first half due to mental lapses and fumbles by the RBs, and end up down 20-0. In the third quarter they decide to stop handing the ball off to the RBs because the opposing defense is vulnerable to the deep ball (they have four Roy Williamses in the secondary). The Skins should have known this all along, but just start attacking the secondary in the 3rd quarter. By the fourth quarter, they're ahead 23-20. Should they just go home at that point, or should they keep doing what's working until the game is over?

That's what the surge was, an adjustment. Sure, we should have known all along that if we go into Iraq we better bring a ton of troops. But are you actually suggesting that the surge was a bad idea?

Here's the problem with the "Obama had it right, we never should have gone in the first place" statement. WE ARE IN IRAQ. We can't turn back the clock. So the question is, what will the candidates do from here on out?

Obama wants to pull out. That makes no fuckin sense at all, not when violence there is way down to the point where Petraeus is recommending we begin drawing down our troops gradually.

Democrats are clinging too hard to the past; yes Bush made mistakes, and we're all angry about it. But unless you come with a plan that makes any damn sense, you will still lose the election. Criticizing what Bush did in his first term doesn't do any good in quelling the remaining violence in Iraq. That's the dems in a nutshell this election; Bush screwed up, we're not Bush, so vote for us! So focused on the past, they've forgotten to develop a plan that makes any sense.

Sure would explain why McCain is hanging in there in a year when it should be a slam dunk for democrats.

They're all talk.

That makes no sense whatsoever.

Imagine: The Redskins turn the ball over three times in the first half due to mental lapses and fumbles by the RBs, and end up down 20-0. In the third quarter they decide to stop handing the ball off to the RBs because the opposing defense is vulnerable to the deep ball (they have four Roy Williamses in the secondary). The Skins should have known this all along, but just start attacking the secondary in the 3rd quarter. By the fourth quarter, they're ahead 23-20. Should they just go home at that point, or should they keep doing what's working until the game is over?

That's what the surge was, an adjustment. Sure, we should have known all along that if we go into Iraq we better bring a ton of troops. But are you actually suggesting that the surge was a bad idea?

Here's the problem with the "Obama had it right, we never should have gone in the first place" statement. WE ARE IN IRAQ. We can't turn back the clock. So the question is, what will the candidates do from here on out?

Obama wants to pull out. That makes no fuckin sense at all, not when violence there is way down to the point where Petraeus is recommending we begin drawing down our troops gradually.

Democrats are clinging too hard to the past; yes Bush made mistakes, and we're all angry about it. But unless you come with a plan that makes any damn sense, you will still lose the election. Criticizing what Bush did in his first term doesn't do any good in quelling the remaining violence in Iraq. That's the dems in a nutshell this election; Bush screwed up, we're not Bush, so vote for us! So focused on the past, they've forgotten to develop a plan that makes any sense.

Sure would explain why McCain is hanging in there in a year when it should be a slam dunk for democrats.

They're all talk.

It makes perfect sense to me but that's because I have two left brain lobes.

Should have known? They knew! We're up 23-20 with how many years to go? What about the refs? Are they making the right calls? Fair calls? I keep hearing about progress yet at this point I don't know why I should care. Who are we fighting in Iraq? Why I'm I paying for it? I find the whole surge thing insulting because I believe it to be a worthless gimmick, a way to divert attention from the real problems in Iraq (ethnic issues and corruption). Iraq is so fickle it doesn't really matter what we do at this point. Iraqis don't want us there. They think their country is better off without us in the mix so why not oblige them?

Pulling out makes sense if you apply the principle of sunken costs. You hand Iraq over back to the Iraqis and tell them "get your shit together, we've done all we could." This is what we're starting to do now and McCain was left looking like a baboon by even Bush with his "Time Horizon not Timetable" bullshit.

Don't site polls, you shot polls down just recently in a post. Besides, you know damn well state polls are what matters because ultimately the electoral vote winner wins the election.

9AknbG8LaEc

"I mean, come on, they must think you're stupid!"

Should have known? They knew! We're up 23-20 with how many years to go? What about the refs? Are they making the right calls? Fair calls? I keep hearing about progress yet at this point I don't know why I should care. Who are we fighting in Iraq? Why I'm I paying for it? I find the whole surge thing insulting because I believe it to be a worthless gimmick, a way to divert attention from the real problems in Iraq (ethnic issues and corruption). Iraq is so fickle it doesn't really matter what we do at this point. Iraqis don't want us there. They think their country is better off without us in the mix so why not oblige them?

Pulling out makes sense if you apply the principle of sunken costs. You hand Iraq over back to the Iraqis and tell them "get your shit together, we've done all we could." This is what we're starting to do now and McCain was left looking like a baboon by even Bush with his "Time Horizon not Timetable" bullshit.

Don't site polls, you shot polls down just recently in a post. Besides, you know damn well state polls are what matters because ultimately the electoral vote winner wins the election.

9AknbG8LaEc

"I mean, come on, they must think you're stupid!"

If you can't even tell me who we're fighting in Iraq, then I can't even believe I'm debating with you. I also can't believe you intend to cast a vote in this election. Our main enemy there is Al Qaeda in Iraq and the like-minded fighters that are coming in from Iran and Syria, but we're also there as a peacekeeping force. Without a strong military and police force, Iraq is left in a power vacuum, giving the various ethnic groups a chance to assert themselves by force and thrust the country into civil war. And you're wrong in saying Iraqis don't want us there, the 90% of people in that country who simply want to go to work and protect their families have wanted us there to keep these forces in check. And now, after finally putting enough troops on the ground, we are gradually handing over control to the Iraqi military and police force as they work to keep warring ethnic groups under control.

When speaking of "sunken costs", you are clearly analyzing the situation solely based upon what America is putting into this war, and not thinking one iota about the Iraqis' stake in all of this.

From a moral standpoint, how can you show such little regard for the safety of a people who we left in a power vacuum when we invaded and toppled Saddam? How can you be OK with leaving suddenly, without first ensuring security, after watching your country invade under false pretenses knocking out electricity, commerce, communications, and running water in some spots? How can you talk of sunken costs when our country left their lives in shambles?

We owe it to them to see that their society can successfully quell any uprisings from the crazies at the far end of the political spectrum, who if given the opportunity, will gladly seize power by force.

Bush created this clusterfuck, but don't make it worse by failing to fix it, and that's exactly what Obama would do.

what part of the Iraqi gov't want us out, doesn't the republican party get? i agree with alot of your post. but i think we have more of an obligation to OUR people. over 4000 dead already. trillions spent. with absolutely no guarantees. your saying we made a gigantic mistake. and, now its our duty to try and remedy the mess we made. this is one of the differences between the 2 parties. in case you havent noticed, we have plenty of our own problems here at home to deal with

what part of the Iraqi gov't want us out, doesn't the republican party get? i agree with alot of your post. but i think we have more of an obligation to OUR people. over 4000 dead already. trillions spent. with absolutely no guarantees. your saying we made a gigantic mistake. and, now its our duty to try and remedy the mess we made. this is one of the differences between the 2 parties. in case you havent noticed, we have plenty of our own problems here at home to deal with

The actual lives of the Iraqi people, whether they live or die, is significantly more important than our economic problems, our healthcare coverage problems, our education issues, etcetera.

If you can't get on board with that then I have serious doubts about your ability to think about the well being of the many as opposed to the well being of the few (or you).

What would you have us do with the money we spent on Iraq over the last few years? No doubt it would go towards something to make your own life easier.