Feingold remains a McCain admirer

[XZeroII]

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=781576

For those who don't know, Feingold is a democrat senator from Wisconsin. Even though I don't really align with democrats, I tend to like the guy. I trust his judgement. I think that it's a pretty balanced article. I think that if McCain would choose Feingold as his VP, I would feel a bit more confident about the future of this country. A republican president and a democrat VP.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: XZeroII
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=781576

For those who don't know, Feingold is a democrat senator from Wisconsin. Even though I don't really align with democrats, I tend to like the guy. I trust his judgement. I think that it's a pretty balanced article. I think that if McCain would choose Feingold as his VP, I would feel a bit more confident about the future of this country. A republican president and a democrat VP.

McCain would ensure a loss by picking him or Lieberman. He needs to pick a strong Conservative to even have a chance.

As to Feingold(mr. back of my hand) - well. He's certainly a strong liberal democrat and believes what he says. So I too "trust" he'll do what he supports, however I do not approve of many of his stances.

But true, the article looks to be fairly balanced. I wonder if Feingold will get the kossacks(and the rest of the fringe left) all over him now.

 

[alphatarget1]

Only Obamabots believe that McCain is the same as Bush. Feingold is one of the few democrats that really say what he means and is respectable.

 

[Tab]

I don't care for Feingold at all, not only did he sign some very ethically questionable legislation regarding credit cards limits and rules for 18-24 year olds the McCain-Feingold Act was a bunch of crap and severely hurt the chance of any 3rd parties coming to power.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: alphatarget1
Only Obamabots believe that McCain is the same as Bush. Feingold is one of the few democrats that really say what he means and is respectable.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The real problem is that the GOP has turned into the party of GWB, John McCain is one of the few republicans who gets it on a few issues. In my mind, its not enough to redeem McCain because he is clueless on most issues, but McCain is certainly more respectable than most current republicans. But yes, McCain is better than GWB, but that says almost nothing because almost anyone would be better than GWB.

And for that matter, McCain and Feingold worked together on campaign finance reform, sadly the bill produced and signed into law was a nothing because it was gutted in committee.

And on real campaign finance reform, I therefore have some hope for the future regardless of who wins.

 

[Throckmorton]

I know damn well what McCain believes. But I vote based on what candidates say and do.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
I know damn well what McCain believes. But I vote based on what candidates say and do.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You are somewhat right, McCain voted for the Iraq war while Obama spoke out against it. Kind of says much right there about experience and judgment.
Experience is worthless if the judgment is defective.

 

[alphatarget1]

Originally posted by: Lemon law

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
I know damn well what McCain believes. But I vote based on what candidates say and do.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You are somewhat right, McCain voted for the Iraq war while Obama spoke out against it. Kind of says much right there about experience and judgment.
Experience is worthless if the judgment is defective.

It was convenient for Obama to take a position against the war because he wasn't there (couldn't) to vote for it. No political liability. Like Bill Clinton said his opposition of the war from the start is a fairytale.

Feingold voted against the war, he can say he opposed it from the beginning.

Obama also said (when the war was "going well" in the beginning) that he wouldn't have done anything different than Bush. How is that good judgment? Obama's judgment is to associate himself with a racist pastor for 20 years.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: alphatarget1

Originally posted by: Lemon law

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
I know damn well what McCain believes. But I vote based on what candidates say and do.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You are somewhat right, McCain voted for the Iraq war while Obama spoke out against it. Kind of says much right there about experience and judgment.
Experience is worthless if the judgment is defective.

It was convenient for Obama to take a position against the war because he wasn't there (couldn't) to vote for it. No political liability. Like Bill Clinton said his opposition of the war from the start is a fairytale.

Feingold voted against the war, he can say he opposed it from the beginning.

Obama also said (when the war was "going well" in the beginning) that he wouldn't have done anything different than Bush. How is that good judgment? Obama's judgment is to associate himself with a racist pastor for 20 years.

Whatever man, he was speaking out against a war that at the time was popular among Americans when he was planning on running for national office shortly thereafter. Noooo... no political liability there at all.

Face it, Obama was right about the war being a bad idea. Just man up and admit it.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: alphatarget1

Originally posted by: Lemon law

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
I know damn well what McCain believes. But I vote based on what candidates say and do.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You are somewhat right, McCain voted for the Iraq war while Obama spoke out against it. Kind of says much right there about experience and judgment.
Experience is worthless if the judgment is defective.

It was convenient for Obama to take a position against the war because he wasn't there (couldn't) to vote for it. No political liability. Like Bill Clinton said his opposition of the war from the start is a fairytale.

Feingold voted against the war, he can say he opposed it from the beginning.

Obama also said (when the war was "going well" in the beginning) that he wouldn't have done anything different than Bush. How is that good judgment? Obama's judgment is to associate himself with a racist pastor for 20 years.

iirc, plenty of Democrats in the House and Senate voted against the war, so your point is stupid.

Furthermore, you can be against the war but it doesn't mean you oppose everything about it. That's just stupid.

 

[alphatarget1]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: alphatarget1

Originally posted by: Lemon law

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
I know damn well what McCain believes. But I vote based on what candidates say and do.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You are somewhat right, McCain voted for the Iraq war while Obama spoke out against it. Kind of says much right there about experience and judgment.
Experience is worthless if the judgment is defective.

It was convenient for Obama to take a position against the war because he wasn't there (couldn't) to vote for it. No political liability. Like Bill Clinton said his opposition of the war from the start is a fairytale.

Feingold voted against the war, he can say he opposed it from the beginning.

Obama also said (when the war was "going well" in the beginning) that he wouldn't have done anything different than Bush. How is that good judgment? Obama's judgment is to associate himself with a racist pastor for 20 years.

Whatever man, he was speaking out against a war that at the time was popular among Americans when he was planning on running for national office shortly thereafter. Noooo... no political liability there at all.

Face it, Obama was right about the war being a bad idea. Just man up and admit it.

Being against the war in Illinois is like being against the war in California. No political liability.

Also recall that Obama ran almost against no one for his senate seat. I'm not saying Obama isn't right to oppose the war, I'm merely saying that at the time he had no political liability to oppose the war.

Face it, McCain was right about the surge. If it weren't for the surge Obama's pullout plan wouldn't be possible today. It was wrong to go into Iraq in the first place, but the last thing the Democrats wanted was to work towards a solution.

 

[alphatarget1]

Text

Joseph Wilson explains it much better than I do.

"Obama's gyrations on Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran are not the actions of one imbued with superior intuitive judgment, but rather the machinations of a political opportunist looking to avoid having his fingerprints on any issue that might be controversial, and require real judgment, while preserving his freedom to bludgeon his adversary for actually taking positions as elected office demands. It is hard to discern whether Senator Obama is a man of principle, but it is clear that he is not a man of substance. And that judgment, based on his hollow record, is inescapable."

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: alphatarget1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: alphatarget1

Originally posted by: Lemon law

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
I know damn well what McCain believes. But I vote based on what candidates say and do.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You are somewhat right, McCain voted for the Iraq war while Obama spoke out against it. Kind of says much right there about experience and judgment.
Experience is worthless if the judgment is defective.

It was convenient for Obama to take a position against the war because he wasn't there (couldn't) to vote for it. No political liability. Like Bill Clinton said his opposition of the war from the start is a fairytale.

Feingold voted against the war, he can say he opposed it from the beginning.

Obama also said (when the war was "going well" in the beginning) that he wouldn't have done anything different than Bush. How is that good judgment? Obama's judgment is to associate himself with a racist pastor for 20 years.

Whatever man, he was speaking out against a war that at the time was popular among Americans when he was planning on running for national office shortly thereafter. Noooo... no political liability there at all.

Face it, Obama was right about the war being a bad idea. Just man up and admit it.

Being against the war in Illinois is like being against the war in California. No political liability.

Also recall that Obama ran almost against no one for his senate seat. I'm not saying Obama isn't right to oppose the war, I'm merely saying that at the time he had no political liability to oppose the war.

Face it, McCain was right about the surge. If it weren't for the surge Obama's pullout plan wouldn't be possible today. It was wrong to go into Iraq in the first place, but the last thing the Democrats wanted was to work towards a solution.

Barack Obama ran against no one? Now I know you're either stupid or a liar.

 

[alphatarget1]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: alphatarget1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: alphatarget1

Originally posted by: Lemon law

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
I know damn well what McCain believes. But I vote based on what candidates say and do.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You are somewhat right, McCain voted for the Iraq war while Obama spoke out against it. Kind of says much right there about experience and judgment.
Experience is worthless if the judgment is defective.

It was convenient for Obama to take a position against the war because he wasn't there (couldn't) to vote for it. No political liability. Like Bill Clinton said his opposition of the war from the start is a fairytale.

Feingold voted against the war, he can say he opposed it from the beginning.

Obama also said (when the war was "going well" in the beginning) that he wouldn't have done anything different than Bush. How is that good judgment? Obama's judgment is to associate himself with a racist pastor for 20 years.

Whatever man, he was speaking out against a war that at the time was popular among Americans when he was planning on running for national office shortly thereafter. Noooo... no political liability there at all.

Face it, Obama was right about the war being a bad idea. Just man up and admit it.

Being against the war in Illinois is like being against the war in California. No political liability.

Also recall that Obama ran almost against no one for his senate seat. I'm not saying Obama isn't right to oppose the war, I'm merely saying that at the time he had no political liability to oppose the war.

Face it, McCain was right about the surge. If it weren't for the surge Obama's pullout plan wouldn't be possible today. It was wrong to go into Iraq in the first place, but the last thing the Democrats wanted was to work towards a solution.

Barack Obama ran against no one? Now I know you're either stupid or a liar.

Also recall that Obama ran almost against no one for his senate seat.

Your lack of reading comprehension skills is embarrassing you.

Text

Courtesy of wikipedia. Let me put this in quote for you since you're so clueless.

"Jack Ryan won the crowded Republican primary with a plurality of votes by a margin of 12% over his closest Republican rival, but three months later, on June 25, 2004 announced his withdrawal from the race ? four days after the Chicago Tribune succeeded in persuading a California court to release previously-sealed child custody records containing embarrassing allegations by Ryan's ex-wife.

Six weeks later, on August 4, 2004, the Illinois Republican State Central Committee asked Alan Keyes of Maryland to replace Ryan as the Republican candidate. Keyes accepted four days later and moved into an apartment in Illinois four days after that, less than 3 months before the general election. The election was the first in which both major party candidates were African Americans, and the 43% margin was the largest in Illinois history in a U.S. Senate election."

Yes, he ran against someone from Maryland, not even a native of Illinois. I would count that as running "almost against no one".

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: alphatarget1

Originally posted by: Lemon law

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
I know damn well what McCain believes. But I vote based on what candidates say and do.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You are somewhat right, McCain voted for the Iraq war while Obama spoke out against it. Kind of says much right there about experience and judgment.
Experience is worthless if the judgment is defective.

It was convenient for Obama to take a position against the war because he wasn't there (couldn't) to vote for it. No political liability. Like Bill Clinton said his opposition of the war from the start is a fairytale.

Feingold voted against the war, he can say he opposed it from the beginning.

Obama also said (when the war was "going well" in the beginning) that he wouldn't have done anything different than Bush. How is that good judgment? Obama's judgment is to associate himself with a racist pastor for 20 years.

Whatever man, he was speaking out against a war that at the time was popular among Americans when he was planning on running for national office shortly thereafter. Noooo... no political liability there at all.

Face it, Obama was right about the war being a bad idea. Just man up and admit it.

what about when obama said he wasn't sure how he would have voted and that his position wasn't far from GWB's?

 

[Lemon law]

I suppose Alpatarget1 has a point, Alan Keyes is a perennial GOP loser on the lunatic fringe the GOP dredged up on short notice, and hence a nobody. In which case we must look to current illini support of Obama to access his current Illinois support. And while similar surrounding states went for Hillary in the dem primaries 08, Obama carried Illinois handily against Hillary. I sure cannot say that bodes ill for Obama or that Obama support in Illinois is any fluke.

Go peddle your papers else where, you hypothesis will not play in Peoria.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: alphatarget1

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: alphatarget1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: alphatarget1

Originally posted by: Lemon law

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
I know damn well what McCain believes. But I vote based on what candidates say and do.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You are somewhat right, McCain voted for the Iraq war while Obama spoke out against it. Kind of says much right there about experience and judgment.
Experience is worthless if the judgment is defective.

It was convenient for Obama to take a position against the war because he wasn't there (couldn't) to vote for it. No political liability. Like Bill Clinton said his opposition of the war from the start is a fairytale.

Feingold voted against the war, he can say he opposed it from the beginning.

Obama also said (when the war was "going well" in the beginning) that he wouldn't have done anything different than Bush. How is that good judgment? Obama's judgment is to associate himself with a racist pastor for 20 years.

Whatever man, he was speaking out against a war that at the time was popular among Americans when he was planning on running for national office shortly thereafter. Noooo... no political liability there at all.

Face it, Obama was right about the war being a bad idea. Just man up and admit it.

Being against the war in Illinois is like being against the war in California. No political liability.

Also recall that Obama ran almost against no one for his senate seat. I'm not saying Obama isn't right to oppose the war, I'm merely saying that at the time he had no political liability to oppose the war.

Face it, McCain was right about the surge. If it weren't for the surge Obama's pullout plan wouldn't be possible today. It was wrong to go into Iraq in the first place, but the last thing the Democrats wanted was to work towards a solution.

Barack Obama ran against no one? Now I know you're either stupid or a liar.

Also recall that Obama ran almost against no one for his senate seat.

Your lack of reading comprehension skills is embarrassing you.

Text

Courtesy of wikipedia. Let me put this in quote for you since you're so clueless.

"Jack Ryan won the crowded Republican primary with a plurality of votes by a margin of 12% over his closest Republican rival, but three months later, on June 25, 2004 announced his withdrawal from the race ? four days after the Chicago Tribune succeeded in persuading a California court to release previously-sealed child custody records containing embarrassing allegations by Ryan's ex-wife.

Six weeks later, on August 4, 2004, the Illinois Republican State Central Committee asked Alan Keyes of Maryland to replace Ryan as the Republican candidate. Keyes accepted four days later and moved into an apartment in Illinois four days after that, less than 3 months before the general election. The election was the first in which both major party candidates were African Americans, and the 43% margin was the largest in Illinois history in a U.S. Senate election."

Yes, he ran against someone from Maryland, not even a native of Illinois. I would count that as running "almost against no one".

He ran against an opponent. He was against the war before that and he made it perfectly clear. Your stupid assessment that it was not a political liability was based on the fact that he wasn't in the Senate. You then changed it to the fact that it was because he was from Illinois. Keep chaning your logic, fool, so we can see that your logic is as hollow as your brain.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: alphatarget1

Originally posted by: Lemon law

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
I know damn well what McCain believes. But I vote based on what candidates say and do.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You are somewhat right, McCain voted for the Iraq war while Obama spoke out against it. Kind of says much right there about experience and judgment.
Experience is worthless if the judgment is defective.

It was convenient for Obama to take a position against the war because he wasn't there (couldn't) to vote for it. No political liability. Like Bill Clinton said his opposition of the war from the start is a fairytale.

Feingold voted against the war, he can say he opposed it from the beginning.

Obama also said (when the war was "going well" in the beginning) that he wouldn't have done anything different than Bush. How is that good judgment? Obama's judgment is to associate himself with a racist pastor for 20 years.

Whatever man, he was speaking out against a war that at the time was popular among Americans when he was planning on running for national office shortly thereafter. Noooo... no political liability there at all.

Face it, Obama was right about the war being a bad idea. Just man up and admit it.

what about when obama said he wasn't sure how he would have voted and that his position wasn't far from GWB's?

That's because some people like to look at things in hindsight. Sen. Obama was being very honest when he said he wasn't sure. You're never sure until something is done. As for your second question, it has already been answered.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: alphatarget1

Originally posted by: Lemon law

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
I know damn well what McCain believes. But I vote based on what candidates say and do.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You are somewhat right, McCain voted for the Iraq war while Obama spoke out against it. Kind of says much right there about experience and judgment.
Experience is worthless if the judgment is defective.

It was convenient for Obama to take a position against the war because he wasn't there (couldn't) to vote for it. No political liability. Like Bill Clinton said his opposition of the war from the start is a fairytale.

Feingold voted against the war, he can say he opposed it from the beginning.

Obama also said (when the war was "going well" in the beginning) that he wouldn't have done anything different than Bush. How is that good judgment? Obama's judgment is to associate himself with a racist pastor for 20 years.

Whatever man, he was speaking out against a war that at the time was popular among Americans when he was planning on running for national office shortly thereafter. Noooo... no political liability there at all.

Face it, Obama was right about the war being a bad idea. Just man up and admit it.

what about when obama said he wasn't sure how he would have voted and that his position wasn't far from GWB's?

And yet people complain when politicians give scripted answers to everything. He was being honest. When he said was that he didn't have access to the intelligence reports that people were giving the Senate, but from where he stood the case was not made and he was against the war.

Wow, it's almost like a politician made a reasonable assessment of themselves and attempted to be honest about an issue. God people, if you want politicians to say what they actually think about things then you cant pillory them for it.

 

[alphatarget1]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: alphatarget1

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: alphatarget1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: alphatarget1

Originally posted by: Lemon law

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
I know damn well what McCain believes. But I vote based on what candidates say and do.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You are somewhat right, McCain voted for the Iraq war while Obama spoke out against it. Kind of says much right there about experience and judgment.
Experience is worthless if the judgment is defective.

It was convenient for Obama to take a position against the war because he wasn't there (couldn't) to vote for it. No political liability. Like Bill Clinton said his opposition of the war from the start is a fairytale.

Feingold voted against the war, he can say he opposed it from the beginning.

Obama also said (when the war was "going well" in the beginning) that he wouldn't have done anything different than Bush. How is that good judgment? Obama's judgment is to associate himself with a racist pastor for 20 years.

Whatever man, he was speaking out against a war that at the time was popular among Americans when he was planning on running for national office shortly thereafter. Noooo... no political liability there at all.

Face it, Obama was right about the war being a bad idea. Just man up and admit it.

Being against the war in Illinois is like being against the war in California. No political liability.

Also recall that Obama ran almost against no one for his senate seat. I'm not saying Obama isn't right to oppose the war, I'm merely saying that at the time he had no political liability to oppose the war.

Face it, McCain was right about the surge. If it weren't for the surge Obama's pullout plan wouldn't be possible today. It was wrong to go into Iraq in the first place, but the last thing the Democrats wanted was to work towards a solution.

Barack Obama ran against no one? Now I know you're either stupid or a liar.

Also recall that Obama ran almost against no one for his senate seat.

Your lack of reading comprehension skills is embarrassing you.

Text

Courtesy of wikipedia. Let me put this in quote for you since you're so clueless.

"Jack Ryan won the crowded Republican primary with a plurality of votes by a margin of 12% over his closest Republican rival, but three months later, on June 25, 2004 announced his withdrawal from the race ? four days after the Chicago Tribune succeeded in persuading a California court to release previously-sealed child custody records containing embarrassing allegations by Ryan's ex-wife.

Six weeks later, on August 4, 2004, the Illinois Republican State Central Committee asked Alan Keyes of Maryland to replace Ryan as the Republican candidate. Keyes accepted four days later and moved into an apartment in Illinois four days after that, less than 3 months before the general election. The election was the first in which both major party candidates were African Americans, and the 43% margin was the largest in Illinois history in a U.S. Senate election."

Yes, he ran against someone from Maryland, not even a native of Illinois. I would count that as running "almost against no one".

He ran against an opponent. He was against the war before that and he made it perfectly clear. Your stupid assessment that it was not a political liability was based on the fact that he wasn't in the Senate. You then changed it to the fact that it was because he was from Illinois. Keep chaning your logic, fool, so we can see that your logic is as hollow as your brain.

I was responding to your comment on how Obama ran "almost against no one", which is true and I provided proof. I don't see you responding to what Joseph Wilson said about Obama's war stance. In case you don't know, he was the guy whose wife, Valerie Plame, was a covert CIA agent and was outed because Joseph Wilson spoke out against the war.

Obamabots deflect every criticism against him. Joseph Wilson made excellent points on Obama's war stance, I don't see you trying to refute those points.

 

[Jhhnn]

Remarkable how a thread about Feingold's esteem for McCain turns into the usual raving about Obama...

An interesting bit from the article-

"He is not a guy who wants to be chummy-chummy with political leaders of the party. He doesn't like that sort of constraint. He's an independent," said Feingold. "So he somehow managed to become the nominee of the Republican Party. But we all know it's not because he was somebody that was kissing up to the Republican establishment, to say the least."

Ok, that's believable, to a point. What we've seen of the McCain campaign so far is that he's holding closer and closer to the usual rightwing positions- because he has to in order to have a chance of winning, and to get the funding to make that happen.

Given that bigtime Repub contributors have operated on a quid pro quo basis for a very long time, particularly the last 7+ years, it seems doubtful to me that he'll be able to maintain that independence if he ever makes it to the big chair and has his eye on re-election... they'll want the goods as promised, and will be very cross if that's not what happens.

McCain is no naif- he knows that he's put himself in a position that will require great compromise on his part. I'm not sure he realizes that, as president, you're either in the belly of the beast, the repub establishment, or you're not... and that he won't be allowed to be effective if he's not.

Seems to me that he and many of his more moderate supporters are approaching the whole thing with their eyes wide shut... kinda like a small fish being gulped down by a largemouth bass. It happens so fast that the eye can't follow it...

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: alphatarget1

I was responding to your comment on how Obama ran "almost against no one", which is true and I provided proof. I don't see you responding to what Joseph Wilson said about Obama's war stance. In case you don't know, he was the guy whose wife, Valerie Plame, was a covert CIA agent and was outed because Joseph Wilson spoke out against the war.

Obamabots deflect every criticism against him. Joseph Wilson made excellent points on Obama's war stance, I don't see you trying to refute those points.

I didn't read it because it wasn't what you and I were discussing. You never linked it with regards to our discussion. BTW, you made a subtle change in your argument and I caught you on it and you still haven't explained why. When you explain that I'll look at your Wilson link, ass.