How many lies does it take for you to stop voting Republican?

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

AllWhacked

Senior member
Nov 1, 2006
236
0
0
Originally posted by: Craig234
I could talk about how you're wrong on the history of the older democrats, but won't bother. Let's just say JFK was the most anti-war democrat of the last century IMO.

Instead, I'm going to say two things. One, we don't need a president with the kind of balls George Bush has, or John McCain. We don't need out military overused.

Second, as a politically engaged native Californian, you don't understand, IMO, at all why Schwarzeneggar was elected.

The whole scheme to recall the current governor that paved the way for a special election for Arnold was the scheme of a few connected Republicans, who perversely used the *Republican*-linked scandal of Enron, which the governor was doing the right thing on by blocking a corrupt settlement that let them off the hook, to get angry voters blaming him and voting for Arnold, who was secretly closely linked to Enron, one of a handful of Republican leaders who was invited to and attended a secret strategy session with them.

The big factor for Arnold was not 'tough', but a combination of the dynamics of the election, which split the vote between 135 candidates instead of having primaries, and his unique public image as a movie star - remember, Ronald Reagan was, too, and he was also Governor of California, and the way the right mostly united behind Arnold (there was one 'real conservative', McClintok who split off a small number of votes), while Democrats did not put up anyone with the public image of Arnold.

It was basically voter idiocy and ignorance IMO. 'Tough'? The voters weren't looking for Arnold to conquer Nevada.

They got what they deserved, a hypocrite who ran on promises of being extremely 'clean' of any money and above politics, who had plenty of his own money and did not need any of those dirty contributions his predecessor accepted - and then went on to take more donations from all kinds of industries than his predecessor had.

I'm not saying JFK was a war-monger, though during FDR's time people accused FDR of being one. What was great about JFK was that when voting for him, you did not get a sense that he secretly loathed the country. That's the feeling i get from most liberal candidates today. I don't think Obama loathes the country, but I do get this vibe when I see he went to church for 20 years with Jeremiah Wright. And before I go further, I actually get a kick that he might secretly be an angry black man inside. I was a history major with an emphasis on African American history. At one point I wanted to pursue a history degree and teach black history and be the angry asian professor.

But I digress, most republicans don't look at a candidate and think geez, he'll get us into a war, lets vote for him. They see if he has the mettle to lead us safely through a war if we ever get into one. Currently, we are in a war and when compared next to each other, I just don't see Obama ready to be a wartime president. He comes off as Clintonesque (adverse to risk), which is fine during peace time, but I didn't approve of Clinton's over reliance on cruise missiles to enact foreign policy. His over use of them and failure to actually kill the right people, may have accelerated 9/11 [Source]

If this was 1992, I would feel more comfortable voting for a guy like Obama. But it is not and thus at the end of the day, Americans want someone with balls. Arnold won because of star power, that I agree. But if he was some liberal Sean Penn type, he probably would have lost. The republicans most certainly would not vote for that type and I think most conservative Democrats would also not vote for that type if given a reasonable alternative.
 

Juddog

Diamond Member
Dec 11, 2006
7,851
6
81
Even Karl Rove - the republican master of spin doctoring - said that McCain has gone a little too far in his ads. Watch how hard Rove tries to spin something that we would all just say as "didn't tell the whole truth":
Beyond beyond beyond.
Full version

 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,226
5,803
126
Originally posted by: AllWhacked
Originally posted by: Craig234
I could talk about how you're wrong on the history of the older democrats, but won't bother. Let's just say JFK was the most anti-war democrat of the last century IMO.

Instead, I'm going to say two things. One, we don't need a president with the kind of balls George Bush has, or John McCain. We don't need out military overused.

Second, as a politically engaged native Californian, you don't understand, IMO, at all why Schwarzeneggar was elected.

The whole scheme to recall the current governor that paved the way for a special election for Arnold was the scheme of a few connected Republicans, who perversely used the *Republican*-linked scandal of Enron, which the governor was doing the right thing on by blocking a corrupt settlement that let them off the hook, to get angry voters blaming him and voting for Arnold, who was secretly closely linked to Enron, one of a handful of Republican leaders who was invited to and attended a secret strategy session with them.

The big factor for Arnold was not 'tough', but a combination of the dynamics of the election, which split the vote between 135 candidates instead of having primaries, and his unique public image as a movie star - remember, Ronald Reagan was, too, and he was also Governor of California, and the way the right mostly united behind Arnold (there was one 'real conservative', McClintok who split off a small number of votes), while Democrats did not put up anyone with the public image of Arnold.

It was basically voter idiocy and ignorance IMO. 'Tough'? The voters weren't looking for Arnold to conquer Nevada.

They got what they deserved, a hypocrite who ran on promises of being extremely 'clean' of any money and above politics, who had plenty of his own money and did not need any of those dirty contributions his predecessor accepted - and then went on to take more donations from all kinds of industries than his predecessor had.

I'm not saying JFK was a war-monger, though during FDR's time people accused FDR of being one. What was great about JFK was that when voting for him, you did not get a sense that he secretly loathed the country. That's the feeling i get from most liberal candidates today. I don't think Obama loathes the country, but I do get this vibe when I see he went to church for 20 years with Jeremiah Wright. And before I go further, I actually get a kick that he might secretly be an angry black man inside. I was a history major with an emphasis on African American history. At one point I wanted to pursue a history degree and teach black history and be the angry asian professor.

But I digress, most republicans don't look at a candidate and think geez, he'll get us into a war, lets vote for him. They see if he has the mettle to lead us safely through a war if we ever get into one. Currently, we are in a war and when compared next to each other, I just don't see Obama ready to be a wartime president. He comes off as Clintonesque (adverse to risk), which is fine during peace time, but I didn't approve of Clinton's over reliance on cruise missiles to enact foreign policy. His over use of them and failure to actually kill the right people, may have accelerated 9/11 [Source]

If this was 1992, I would feel more comfortable voting for a guy like Obama. But it is not and thus at the end of the day, Americans want someone with balls. Arnold won because of star power, that I agree. But if he was some liberal Sean Penn type, he probably would have lost. The republicans most certainly would not vote for that type and I think most conservative Democrats would also not vote for that type if given a reasonable alternative.

Balls without Brains is the Darwin Awards candidate.
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
64,144
12,461
136
Richard Nixon's "I am NOT a crook!" was enough to convince me that the Republicans weren't very truthful. Then, add the multitude of lies told by Ronnie "I must have been out of the loop on that one," Rayguns, George "Read My Lips!" Bush, and let's not forget Georgie "I can't begin to list all the false and/or stupid things that have come out of his mouth," Bush.
Of course, Bill Clinton's "I did not have sex with that woman," and "What is the definition of is?" didn't do much for the Democrat's credibility either...:D
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: AllWhacked
I'm not saying JFK was a war-monger, though during FDR's time people accused FDR of being one. What was great about JFK was that when voting for him, you did not get a sense that he secretly loathed the country. That's the feeling i get from most liberal candidates today.

I'd like you to think about something.

Consider that it's not the candidates who have become so much worse, but rather that the attack machine has become so much more effective at making them seem worse.

Not only directly, but the whole demonization of 'liberals' at all that is thoughtlessly associated with democrats.

I'll illustrate by continuing the JFK analogy. As we know, he is (and was to a lesser extent) a generally beloved president seen as great for a lot of reasons.

Consider the following smears in the hands of today's Republican attackers.

First I'll just go with your theme on loving America. What could they do with:

- Son of an appeaser of Hitler who said England was a lost cause, and had to resign as ambassdor early in disgrace over it
- JFK said all businessmen are sons of bitches
- JFK said that he'd like to cut the CIA into a thousand pieces and throw them into the wind
- JFK reversed our long standing policy of supporting our European allies in their colonization of third world nations and spoke of the practice being wrong
- JFK said the US was a nation who had a problem with racism that was immoral
- JFK said the military leaders' opinions on military matters weren't worth a damn
- At the height of the cold war JFK spoke about how we had to do more to recognize the good qualities in our enemies and what we have in common
- JFK was an 'elitist playboy', the son of one of the wealthiest men in the country who 'bought him the presidency', who had a long history of promiscuity
- JFK had been in a relationship during WWII with a married, suspected German spy

All of those are not out of place in a very progressive liberal today - and yet the difference is the respect Americans generally showed him compared to most candidates today.

Few mocked Kennedy for incompetence in captaining his PT boat that led it to get chopped in half when few if any other PT boats had that happen - in contrast to the right-wing, including many delegates to the Republican convention, in 2004 saying that Kerry's shrapnel wounds had only scratched him so it was no big deal, and wore purple heart bandaids to ridicule him.

There were a few precursors to today - remember on JFK's Dallas trip, the full page ad and posters looking like criminal booking photos calling him a traitor to the nation.

The difference: the Republican Party was not then doing what Rove does the same way.

Now, imagine in addition if they had exposed his marital infidelity, further politicized his Bay of Pigs problems by calling him cowardly for not using US forces, attacked him for allowing the Russians to ever get missiles into Cuba when the Republicans had been warning about the danger for much of the year, hiding his medical problems/Parkinson's Disease, attacked him for not following the military advice to put combat troops in Vietnam.

While there was some criticism on these things, it wasn't the mainstream at all.

But I digress, most republicans don't look at a candidate and think geez, he'll get us into a war, lets vote for him. They see if he has the mettle to lead us safely through a war if we ever get into one. Currently, we are in a war and when compared next to each other, I just don't see Obama ready to be a wartime president. He comes off as Clintonesque (adverse to risk), which is fine during peace time, but I didn't approve of Clinton's over reliance on cruise missiles to enact foreign policy. His over use of them and failure to actually kill the right people, may have accelerated 9/11 [Source]

I agree with your first sentence, but I also think Republican voters are generally very unaware of the agenda of the modern Republican party. Who among them recognized that the administration, filled with PNAC members who had an aggressive agenda for US military activity in the middle east, whose doctrine led them to watch for any event that could be used as a 'second Pearl Harbor' to take advantage of the public's shock to give them license for otheriwse unjustifiable aggression? (BTW, read 'the shock doctrine'.)

I think that their (and your, apparently) concern about the mettle of either party's candidate is about as reliable as Bush's judgement from looking into Putin's eyes.

Obama is absolutely - absolutely - prepared for defending the US appropriately.

I don't even want to get into speculation about McCain's mental state effects from years of imprisonment or his famous 'temper', but his judgement is a real question, including his rush selection of Palin to be VP after one 15 minute meeting earlier, and his disregard for all her serious inadequacies. I don't see him as the poster child for ready for good leadership of American foreign policy, with his 'follow Osama to the gates of Hell' nonsense.

IMO you really need to get past the phony issue of who has the 'balls' and instead look at the situation we're in with the country being dominated by an 'elite' who is running the nation's public into the ground, IMO on the verge of some serious rollbacks by the wealthy class who has always wanted to undo the changes to American culture brought by FDR.

We have an utterly dangersouly incompetent ideology governing now, who is ideologically against the power of the people in representative democracy that has gutted our government (read Frank Rich's "The Wrecking Crew, please), and we need to return to good government, which only one party might do.
 

Juddog

Diamond Member
Dec 11, 2006
7,851
6
81
The big change in politics has been the Karl Rove smear machine. The republicans have become good at smearing their opposition without actually coming up with a substantial plan or even bother to focus on the issues. The issue should be who is the most qualified right now to be president; right now that is definitely not McCain / Palin. McCain has enough health problems and is old enough that there is a very real chance that if they are elected, Palin will take over the presidency when he croaks. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvesa49zSIM

Palin is simply unfit to be president. I have never been more scared for the fate of my country than thinking about having her in office who has no idea about how the world political system works. The same arguments that were used against Hillary by the right wing have suddenly evaporated when another woman got even closer to the whitehouse with one tenth the credentials to fit the spot that Hillary had. Instead of having honest concern for the candidates credentials, the republican partisans have turned this into a football game with people mindlessly chanting for McCain and Palin.

Folks this isn't a football game here - there is a very real chance that if McCain gets elected, croaks or becomes seriously ill from his many bouts with skin cancer, that Palin will take over and be running this country. If that happens we will be fucked. For gods sake, people need to look at the issues at hand and the candidates suitability to be running this country instead of just seeing it as our side against theirs as a partisan. Obama / Biden is the most fit to run the country right now. It isn't even close. People are being blinded by their partisanship. We need to improve our relations with foreign nations instead of making them worse which is what will happen if McCain / Palin get in.
 

Zenmervolt

Elite member
Oct 22, 2000
24,512
21
81
Originally posted by: Farang
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
I'll be very honest on this one:

I don't care even one iota how many lies a campaign tells. My sole voting criterion is how well I agree with their proposed policies. Which is why I'm going with a write-in candidate this election.

ZV

This seems contradictory because you're willing to vote for what a dishonest person is promising to do once elected.

Stipulated. However, the unfortunate reality is that it is close to impossible to run a truly "honest" campaign. There will always be lies, if not outright, then lies of omission or skewings of data, so one cannot truly vote based on "honesty".

Candidates do lie about their positions, this is true. Which is why a candidate's voting record is such an important thing to consider.

ZV
 

Zenmervolt

Elite member
Oct 22, 2000
24,512
21
81
Originally posted by: retrospooty
Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Nope :)

Most of the 'lies' are subject to debate. There are VERY few instances where you can find a candidate saying something that is totally 100% false and known to be false.

LIke... I DID NOT HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS WITH THAT WOMEN

Or like "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction"

One Lie was a personal matter... the other cost 500 billion dollars and many many lives.

Gain some perspective man!

Except that most of the world believed that Iraq had WMD's at the time that statement was made. Granted, it turned out that the intelligence data were inaccurate, but the data that were available at the time the decision was made did indeed suggest that Iraq had WMD's.

I'm not saying that was sufficient reason to invade (I really don't think it was, lots of other countries have WMD's and we're not invading them), but it's a little bit disingenuous to call that a "lie". It was poor intelligence data to be sure, but I have a hard time considering it an out-and-out lie.

ZV
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Originally posted by: retrospooty
Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Nope :)

Most of the 'lies' are subject to debate. There are VERY few instances where you can find a candidate saying something that is totally 100% false and known to be false.

LIke... I DID NOT HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS WITH THAT WOMEN

Or like "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction"

One Lie was a personal matter... the other cost 500 billion dollars and many many lives.

Gain some perspective man!

Except that most of the world believed that Iraq had WMD's at the time that statement was made.
ZV

For the sake of discussion, put aside the issue of the claim there were WMD, and deal with the lie that Bush promised the resolution authorizing force *would not* be used as a resolution for war, but only for getting the inspectors back in, and war would only be a last resort if the inspectors were unable to finish their work - but instead he ordered the inspectors out as they were completing their work and invaded.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: BoomerD
Richard Nixon's "I am NOT a crook!" was enough to convince me that the Republicans weren't very truthful. Then, add the multitude of lies told by Ronnie "I must have been out of the loop on that one," Rayguns, George "Read My Lips!" Bush, and let's not forget Georgie "I can't begin to list all the false and/or stupid things that have come out of his mouth," Bush.
Of course, Bill Clinton's "I did not have sex with that woman," and "What is the definition of is?" didn't do much for the Democrat's credibility either...:D
At least Clinton's lies were about something worthwhile. Well that's not exactly true, I wouldn't call putting the wood to Monica worthwhile.
 

Zenmervolt

Elite member
Oct 22, 2000
24,512
21
81
Originally posted by: Craig234
I'd rather see Libertarians abandoned their fantasies that would lead to disaster though, and understand that democratic government has a role to play in the well being of society.

Only insofar as providing basic services like national defense. It is not the government's job to make sure that everyone gets everything they want. The job of a government is to promote the general welfare, not to provide it.

Originally posted by: Craig234
Then when they get past the Republican lies about democrats, they may just find that democrats protect a lot of freedoms and keep the system working for business.

"A lot" of freedoms is a far cry from "all" of them, and certainly not acceptable. Freedom is not something that can be met halfway. The individual is superior to society and until the Democratic Party realises that, there is absolutely no way that true Libertarians will support them.

You clearly have very little understanding of Libertarian principals if you think they could ever support a party that promotes as much bloat in government as the Democrats do. (To be fair, the Republicans promote nearly as much bloat, which is why they are losing support as well.)

ZV
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Originally posted by: Craig234
I'd rather see Libertarians abandoned their fantasies that would lead to disaster though, and understand that democratic government has a role to play in the well being of society.

Only insofar as providing basic services like national defense. It is not the government's job to make sure that everyone gets everything they want. The job of a government is to promote the general welfare, not to provide it.

We're in agreement. You are posting a straw man. I never said what you are arguing against. The libertarians are preventing the government from PROMOTING it.

When you distort my position as 'giving people everything they want', you are not being honest and the discussion is useless. Debate what I say.

We do disagree, though, I think that the extreme you advocate of only 'basic like national defense' is wrong as well. I'm discussing a middle that you're distorting.

Originally posted by: Craig234
Then when they get past the Republican lies about democrats, they may just find that democrats protect a lot of freedoms and keep the system working for business.

"A lot" of freedoms is a far cry from "all" of them, and certainly not acceptable. Freedom is not something that can be met halfway. The individual is superior to society and until the Democratic Party realises that, there is absolutely no way that true Libertarians will support them.

You're engaging in empty rhetoric, by throwing around phrases like 'a lot' versus 'all' freedoms, without defining what you mean by them.

I certainly am a big advocate of the individual, and while I'm inclined to say I agree the individual is 'above society', I hold back because of the need again to define terms. What I mean by that is that individual rights are very important, and that society should not treat individuals as if they had to simply serve the soviety - but on the other hand, I think the individual does have some clear obligations to society, starting with taxes. It's a balance, not one simple slogan.

Otherwise, the individual has no obligation to pay taxes, not to pollute, to stop at red lights, or any number of behaviors that are not appropriate for 'personal freedom'.

You clearly have very little understanding of Libertarian principals if you think they could ever support a party that promotes as much bloat in government as the Democrats do. (To be fair, the Republicans promote nearly as much bloat, which is why they are losing support as well.)
ZV

You clearly have very little understanding of the modern Republican party when you say they support *nearly as much* bloat as the Democrats, rather than the actual *far more*.

Do I really need to point you to the links of deficit changes by party over the last 25 years?

I'm not saying the democrats are the Libertarian's ideal party, but not all Libertarians are nutty enough to be 'pure' Libertarians, and I think the Democrats migh twell satisfy a lot of them, and clearly be a better alternative than the Republican party, once they look at facts instead of Republican myths. IMO, Libertarianism is a radical, extremist and naive platform that would benefit from some moderation, which would move them closer to democrats.

I certainly don't expect the 'true beliver' libertarians to agree.
 

Zenmervolt

Elite member
Oct 22, 2000
24,512
21
81
Originally posted by: Craig234
You clearly have very little understanding of the modern Republican party when you say they support *nearly as much* bloat as the Democrats, rather than the actual *far more*.

Do I really need to point you to the links of deficit changes by party over the last 25 years?

Deficit is a rather poor measure as one can severely increase bloat while also raising taxation and end up decreasing the deficit while still expanding governmental control well beyond the boundaries it should have.

In terms of expanding government's power over the citizenry, Democrats currently outstrip Republicans, though, as I said, not by much.

ZV
 

Zenmervolt

Elite member
Oct 22, 2000
24,512
21
81
Originally posted by: Craig234
I think the individual does have some clear obligations to society, starting with taxes.

And ending with taxes. And restricted to only such taxes as provide the most basic of services such as national defense.

ZV
 

lupi

Lifer
Apr 8, 2001
32,539
260
126
You mean lies like

We will lower gas prices
We will get us out of iraq
We will restore your civil liberties
We will perform a 100 day plan to reform the government
 

OneOfTheseDays

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2000
7,052
0
0
I initially was a little discouraged that Obama was not getting into the fight and really going after McCain for all his lies.

Looking at the headlines today made me realize what a cunning move it was for Barack not to get knee deep in the mud. McCain's lies are starting to catch up with him and every single major media outlet is calling him a liar. The theme of McCain as a liar is starting to pick up and it really calls into question his biggest asset, his personal integrity.

John McCain made the most brilliant move of this election in picking Sarah Palin, but he also made one of the biggest blunders in going so negative and so false so early.

This is your THIRD McCain/Republican lies thread in a week. This topic will now be moved into the existing thread.

PC Surgeon
AnandTech P&N Moderator
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: OneOfTheseDays
I initially was a little discouraged that Obama was not getting into the fight and really going after McCain for all his lies.

Looking at the headlines today made me realize what a cunning move it was for Barack not to get knee deep in the mud. McCain's lies are starting to catch up with him and every single major media outlet is calling him a liar. The theme of McCain as a liar is starting to pick up and it really calls into question his biggest asset, his personal integrity.

John McCain made the most brilliant move of this election in picking Sarah Palin, but he also made one of the biggest blunders in going so negative and so false so early.

The lies are working for McCain.

He is even catching Obama is strong Democrat states which weren't that many to begin with.

McCain is simply solidifying an easy Electoral Vote victory with the lies.
 

GTKeeper

Golden Member
Apr 14, 2005
1,118
0
0
Originally posted by: OneOfTheseDays
I initially was a little discouraged that Obama was not getting into the fight and really going after McCain for all his lies.

Looking at the headlines today made me realize what a cunning move it was for Barack not to get knee deep in the mud. McCain's lies are starting to catch up with him and every single major media outlet is calling him a liar. The theme of McCain as a liar is starting to pick up and it really calls into question his biggest asset, his personal integrity.

John McCain made the most brilliant move of this election in picking Sarah Palin, but he also made one of the biggest blunders in going so negative and so false so early.

What major media outlets?
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,133
38
91
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: OneOfTheseDays
I initially was a little discouraged that Obama was not getting into the fight and really going after McCain for all his lies.

Looking at the headlines today made me realize what a cunning move it was for Barack not to get knee deep in the mud. McCain's lies are starting to catch up with him and every single major media outlet is calling him a liar. The theme of McCain as a liar is starting to pick up and it really calls into question his biggest asset, his personal integrity.

John McCain made the most brilliant move of this election in picking Sarah Palin, but he also made one of the biggest blunders in going so negative and so false so early.

The lies are working for McCain.

He is even catching Obama is strong Democrat states which weren't that many to begin with.

McCain is simply solidifying an easy Electoral Vote victory with the lies.


You may be confusing the post-convention bounce with the lies. The lies are clearly not working as people are calling them out on it and Obama's campaign is using the harsh word "lie" rather than something easier on the stomach like "fib", "misspeak", or "untruth".
 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: OneOfTheseDays
I initially was a little discouraged that Obama was not getting into the fight and really going after McCain for all his lies.

Looking at the headlines today made me realize what a cunning move it was for Barack not to get knee deep in the mud. McCain's lies are starting to catch up with him and every single major media outlet is calling him a liar. The theme of McCain as a liar is starting to pick up and it really calls into question his biggest asset, his personal integrity.

John McCain made the most brilliant move of this election in picking Sarah Palin, but he also made one of the biggest blunders in going so negative and so false so early.

The lies are working for McCain.

He is even catching Obama is strong Democrat states which weren't that many to begin with.

McCain is simply solidifying an easy Electoral Vote victory with the lies.

No offense Dave, but your an idiot if this is truly what you believe.

McCain is getting a double bounce from his surprise pick of Palin followed immediately by the RNC convention. Nothing more, nothing less. The convention bump usually lasts about a week or maybe a little longer if no real big story breaks. The Palin choice extended his a little longer.

However, the Palin choice is starting to wear off with the more that is being discovered about her and the less that she is willing to appear forthright in the face of these allegations. Couple that with the asinine statements of McCain's regarding the economy and I'm willing to bet that the map will look drastically different in next week's edition of the polls. If not then, by the second week for sure.
 

OneOfTheseDays

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2000
7,052
0
0
CNN, MSNBC, FOX.......all major news outlets are covering McCain's outright lies.

McCain's "bounce" came entirely from his great VP pick. BUT, that is fading as the latest poll numbers show. With the economy a disaster Barack has ample opportunity to capitalize this week and if he does well in the debate he should be up in the election by that point.
 

smashp

Platinum Member
Aug 30, 2003
2,443
0
0
It is being established now and Backed By Media outlets that McCain Lied

I mean when Karl Rove says your lies go to Far.....ouch

They will hammer that point home

McCain will now be on the defensive for his honesty and integrity.....

How can you be a maverick when you are just another lieing politician?