The Project for Excellence in Journalism's report shows John McCain's media coverage has been 57 percent negative, while Barack Obama's has been 29 percent negative.
Full article here: http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/22/study-shows-mccain-media-coverage-negative/
Showing posts with label john mccain. Show all posts
Showing posts with label john mccain. Show all posts
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
AP presidential poll: All even in the homestretch...
Oct 22 01:23 PM US/Eastern
By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - The presidential race tightened after the final debate, with John McCain gaining among whites and people earning less than $50,000, according to an Associated Press-GfK poll that shows McCain and Barack Obama essentially running even among likely voters in the election homestretch.
The poll, which found Obama at 44 percent and McCain at 43 percent, supports what some Republicans and Democrats privately have said in recent days: that the race narrowed after the third debate as GOP-leaning voters drifted home to their party and McCain's "Joe the plumber" analogy struck a chord.
Three weeks ago, an AP-GfK survey found that Obama had surged to a seven-point lead over McCain, lifted by voters who thought the Democrat was better suited to lead the nation through its sudden economic crisis.
The contest is still volatile, and the split among voters is apparent less than two weeks before Election Day.
"I trust McCain more, and I do feel that he has more experience in Government than Obama. I don't think Obama has been around long enough," said Angela Decker, 44, of La Porte, Ind.
>>>I was right there today at the event. I am the handsome guy with the "M" painted on, to spell "M-A-V-E-R-I-C-K," or did I take this pic?
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Krystallnacht...Brown Shirts Control Prince George's County...
Funny. I guess not so funny when you really think about it. An independent business puts up a McCAIN-PALIN sign, and the Obama Brown Shirts swing into action. Forgeddabout good debate. Forgeddabout healthy competion. Forgeddabout neighbor living peaceably next to neighbor. The Obama campaign supporters, the DemocraPs, and bullies have intimidated the business to take the sign down. 77% Democrat, and Joe the Hotelier can't put up an M-P sign. Even the NAACP was outraged?!?!?!
Shameful. Should be fun if 'they' get in the White House. Union control, centralized thought, and Brown Shirts intimidating businesses...Krystallnacht. It's no joke. Neighbor turning on neighbor.
Do your homework. Study history. It repeats itself, you know.
Read the Washington Post story here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/11/AR2008101101465_pf.html
Shameful. Should be fun if 'they' get in the White House. Union control, centralized thought, and Brown Shirts intimidating businesses...Krystallnacht. It's no joke. Neighbor turning on neighbor.
Do your homework. Study history. It repeats itself, you know.
Read the Washington Post story here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/11/AR2008101101465_pf.html
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
McCain's Med Plan Offers Consumers More Long-Term Choice...
By Editorial, Rocky Mountain News October 13, 2008
Article Excerpt: Click here to read entire post.
If there's one issue Coloradans have been intently listening to in the season of never-ending political debates - besides the economy, of course - it's probably health care. A new Census Bureau report, after all, reveals that nearly one in five Coloradans under age 65 lack health insurance. The number jumps to 35 percent when only counting the Hispanic community. And while that doesn't mean every one of those residents is in financial straits because of health care costs, one catastrophic medical crisis can send a family to the poorhouse. Both political parties and their candidates are quick to agree that America's health care system is fractured. Both John McCain and Barack Obama are touting preventive care and better information technology to cut costs, and have proposed safety nets (though markedly different) to cover the hard-to-insure, such as patients with pre-existing conditions. That's where the agreement stops. How can voters wade through the health care rhetoric to pick the best offered solution? If you're uninsured, your focus is on securing adequate coverage. If you're insured, you want to know whether proposals will ding your wallet or the quality and scope of your coverage. In either case, you probably value some degree of choice. If that's a high priority, we'd recommend John McCain's plan. Barack Obama's plan extols choice, too, but over time leads in another direction. McCain's health care proposal hinges on a $5,000 tax credit for families ($2,500 for individuals) under which individuals could either keep their current insurance or go out and buy coverage, even shopping across state lines to get the best rates. And under McCain's plan, if you don't spend the entire allotted amount on coverage, the remainder can be deposited in Health Savings Accounts (which McCain wants to expand). The Obama plan, meanwhile, gives birth to a bouncing new bureaucracy: the National Health Insurance Exchange, which would offer private policies and a public insurance plan "based on benefits available to members of Congress" - generous benefits, in other words. All wanting insurance in the public plan would have to be covered under the same premium, without regard to lifestyle choices such as smoking that increase health risks. Obama's plan purports to maintain personal choice - and to some exent does at first - but a growing entitlement program will almost certainly crowd private insurers out of the market.
Article Excerpt: Click here to read entire post.
If there's one issue Coloradans have been intently listening to in the season of never-ending political debates - besides the economy, of course - it's probably health care. A new Census Bureau report, after all, reveals that nearly one in five Coloradans under age 65 lack health insurance. The number jumps to 35 percent when only counting the Hispanic community. And while that doesn't mean every one of those residents is in financial straits because of health care costs, one catastrophic medical crisis can send a family to the poorhouse. Both political parties and their candidates are quick to agree that America's health care system is fractured. Both John McCain and Barack Obama are touting preventive care and better information technology to cut costs, and have proposed safety nets (though markedly different) to cover the hard-to-insure, such as patients with pre-existing conditions. That's where the agreement stops. How can voters wade through the health care rhetoric to pick the best offered solution? If you're uninsured, your focus is on securing adequate coverage. If you're insured, you want to know whether proposals will ding your wallet or the quality and scope of your coverage. In either case, you probably value some degree of choice. If that's a high priority, we'd recommend John McCain's plan. Barack Obama's plan extols choice, too, but over time leads in another direction. McCain's health care proposal hinges on a $5,000 tax credit for families ($2,500 for individuals) under which individuals could either keep their current insurance or go out and buy coverage, even shopping across state lines to get the best rates. And under McCain's plan, if you don't spend the entire allotted amount on coverage, the remainder can be deposited in Health Savings Accounts (which McCain wants to expand). The Obama plan, meanwhile, gives birth to a bouncing new bureaucracy: the National Health Insurance Exchange, which would offer private policies and a public insurance plan "based on benefits available to members of Congress" - generous benefits, in other words. All wanting insurance in the public plan would have to be covered under the same premium, without regard to lifestyle choices such as smoking that increase health risks. Obama's plan purports to maintain personal choice - and to some exent does at first - but a growing entitlement program will almost certainly crowd private insurers out of the market.
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Leave the Pork, Take the Cannoli...
Barack Obama - over 943 days in Senate, $941M in requested earmarks
John McCAIN - over 7,500 days in Senate, $0 in requested earmarks.
After 21 years, you are still passing on the pork...thanks John.
John McCAIN - over 7,500 days in Senate, $0 in requested earmarks.
After 21 years, you are still passing on the pork...thanks John.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Corrupt Son of a Kenyan...
I showed my wife the video, "Burning Down the House...", (which, by the way, has been taken down from You Tube by Warner Brothers, so search for it and you will find it if my link to it fails).
Anyway, my wife pointed out that the sermon at Church this past week was "The Road to Hell is Paved with Good Intentions." Even if you can say, as she did, that BHO's and the folks on street level, the neighborhood activists, the social workers...had "good intentions", they SHOULD have known the ramifications of their actions. They should have figured their practices were predatory. For GOD's sake, the loans were called SUB-PRIME for a reason! Sub- prime is a nice way of saying "HIGH-RISK"! Sub-prime is a candy coated way to say, "LESS THAN IDEAL." Sub-prime is a great term to call loans that should not be lent.
Stupidity is no excuse for a Presidential candidate. "I didn't figure it would explode..." is not an appropriate reponse.
Follow the money, and it leads straight to Hell. A great place for a smooth talking, politically savvy corrupt son of a Kenyan and his multi-millionaire peices of crap cronies. May they rot in hell.
Anyway, my wife pointed out that the sermon at Church this past week was "The Road to Hell is Paved with Good Intentions." Even if you can say, as she did, that BHO's and the folks on street level, the neighborhood activists, the social workers...had "good intentions", they SHOULD have known the ramifications of their actions. They should have figured their practices were predatory. For GOD's sake, the loans were called SUB-PRIME for a reason! Sub- prime is a nice way of saying "HIGH-RISK"! Sub-prime is a candy coated way to say, "LESS THAN IDEAL." Sub-prime is a great term to call loans that should not be lent.
Stupidity is no excuse for a Presidential candidate. "I didn't figure it would explode..." is not an appropriate reponse.
Follow the money, and it leads straight to Hell. A great place for a smooth talking, politically savvy corrupt son of a Kenyan and his multi-millionaire peices of crap cronies. May they rot in hell.
Monday, September 29, 2008
John McCAIN - Foreshadowing - May 2006...
"If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole."
John McCain, Senate Floor, 5/25/2006
John McCain, Senate Floor, 5/25/2006
Monday, September 22, 2008
Greenspan's Warning, and How the Dems Crashed the Economy...
...Commentary by Kevin Hassett
It is easy to identify the historical turning point that marked the beginning of the end.
Back in 2005, Fannie and Freddie were, after years of dominating Washington, on the ropes. They were enmeshed in accounting scandals that led to turnover at the top. At one telling moment in late 2004, captured in an article by my American Enterprise Institute colleague Peter Wallison, the Securities and Exchange Comiission's chief accountant told disgraced Fannie Mae chief Franklin Raines that Fannie's position on the relevant accounting issue was not even ``on the page'' of allowable interpretations.
Then legislative momentum emerged for an attempt to create a ``world-class regulator'' that would oversee the pair more like banks, imposing strict requirements on their ability to take excessive risks. Politicians who previously had associated themselves proudly with the two accounting miscreants were less eager to be associated with them. The time was ripe.
Greenspan's Warning
The clear gravity of the situation pushed the legislation forward. Some might say the current mess couldn't be foreseen, yet in 2005 Alan Greenspan told Congress how urgent it was for it to act in the clearest possible terms: If Fannie and Freddie ``continue to grow, continue to have the low capital that they have, continue to engage in the dynamic hedging of their portfolios, which they need to do for interest rate risk aversion, they potentially create ever-growing potential systemic risk down the road,'' he said. ``We are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk.''
What happened next was extraordinary. For the first time in history, a serious Fannie and Freddie reform bill was passed by the Senate Banking Committee. The bill gave a regulator power to crack down, and would have required the companies to eliminate their investments in risky assets.
Different World
If that bill had become law, then the world today would be different. In 2005, 2006 and 2007, a blizzard of terrible mortgage paper fluttered out of the Fannie and Freddie clouds, burying many of our oldest and most venerable institutions. Without their checkbooks keeping the market liquid and buying up excess supply, the market would likely have not existed.
But the bill didn't become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn't even get the Senate to vote on the matter.
That such a reckless political stand could have been taken by the Democrats was obscene even then. Wallison wrote at the time: ``It is a classic case of socializing the risk while privatizing the profit. The Democrats and the few Republicans who oppose portfolio limitations could not possibly do so if their constituents understood what they were doing.''
Mounds of Materials
Now that the collapse has occurred, the roadblock built by Senate Democrats in 2005 is unforgivable. Many who opposed the bill doubtlessly did so for honorable reasons. Fannie and Freddie provided mounds of materials defending their practices. Perhaps some found their propaganda convincing.
But we now know that many of the senators who protected Fannie and Freddie, including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Christopher Dodd, have received mind-boggling levels of financial support from them over the years.
Throughout his political career, Obama has gotten more than $125,000 in campaign contributions from employees and political action committees of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, second only to Dodd, the Senate Banking Committee chairman, who received more than $165,000.
Clinton, the 12th-ranked recipient of Fannie and Freddie PAC and employee contributions, has received more than $75,000 from the two enterprises and their employees. The private profit found its way back to the senators who killed the fix.
There has been a lot of talk about who is to blame for this crisis. A look back at the story of 2005 makes the answer pretty clear.
Oh, and there is one little footnote to the story that's worth keeping in mind while Democrats point fingers between now and Nov. 4: Senator John McCain was one of the three cosponsors of S.190, the bill that would have averted this mess.
Kevin Hassett, director of economic-policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, is a Bloomberg News columnist.
It is easy to identify the historical turning point that marked the beginning of the end.
Back in 2005, Fannie and Freddie were, after years of dominating Washington, on the ropes. They were enmeshed in accounting scandals that led to turnover at the top. At one telling moment in late 2004, captured in an article by my American Enterprise Institute colleague Peter Wallison, the Securities and Exchange Comiission's chief accountant told disgraced Fannie Mae chief Franklin Raines that Fannie's position on the relevant accounting issue was not even ``on the page'' of allowable interpretations.
Then legislative momentum emerged for an attempt to create a ``world-class regulator'' that would oversee the pair more like banks, imposing strict requirements on their ability to take excessive risks. Politicians who previously had associated themselves proudly with the two accounting miscreants were less eager to be associated with them. The time was ripe.
Greenspan's Warning
The clear gravity of the situation pushed the legislation forward. Some might say the current mess couldn't be foreseen, yet in 2005 Alan Greenspan told Congress how urgent it was for it to act in the clearest possible terms: If Fannie and Freddie ``continue to grow, continue to have the low capital that they have, continue to engage in the dynamic hedging of their portfolios, which they need to do for interest rate risk aversion, they potentially create ever-growing potential systemic risk down the road,'' he said. ``We are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk.''
What happened next was extraordinary. For the first time in history, a serious Fannie and Freddie reform bill was passed by the Senate Banking Committee. The bill gave a regulator power to crack down, and would have required the companies to eliminate their investments in risky assets.
Different World
If that bill had become law, then the world today would be different. In 2005, 2006 and 2007, a blizzard of terrible mortgage paper fluttered out of the Fannie and Freddie clouds, burying many of our oldest and most venerable institutions. Without their checkbooks keeping the market liquid and buying up excess supply, the market would likely have not existed.
But the bill didn't become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn't even get the Senate to vote on the matter.
That such a reckless political stand could have been taken by the Democrats was obscene even then. Wallison wrote at the time: ``It is a classic case of socializing the risk while privatizing the profit. The Democrats and the few Republicans who oppose portfolio limitations could not possibly do so if their constituents understood what they were doing.''
Mounds of Materials
Now that the collapse has occurred, the roadblock built by Senate Democrats in 2005 is unforgivable. Many who opposed the bill doubtlessly did so for honorable reasons. Fannie and Freddie provided mounds of materials defending their practices. Perhaps some found their propaganda convincing.
But we now know that many of the senators who protected Fannie and Freddie, including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Christopher Dodd, have received mind-boggling levels of financial support from them over the years.
Throughout his political career, Obama has gotten more than $125,000 in campaign contributions from employees and political action committees of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, second only to Dodd, the Senate Banking Committee chairman, who received more than $165,000.
Clinton, the 12th-ranked recipient of Fannie and Freddie PAC and employee contributions, has received more than $75,000 from the two enterprises and their employees. The private profit found its way back to the senators who killed the fix.
There has been a lot of talk about who is to blame for this crisis. A look back at the story of 2005 makes the answer pretty clear.
Oh, and there is one little footnote to the story that's worth keeping in mind while Democrats point fingers between now and Nov. 4: Senator John McCain was one of the three cosponsors of S.190, the bill that would have averted this mess.
Kevin Hassett, director of economic-policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, is a Bloomberg News columnist.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Biden Bills Patriots withTax Burden...
My friends, if you do not pay taxes, YOU ARE NOT A PATRIOT! And if taxes are raised on YOU, pay up and SHUT UP. You have no say in the matter, and even though 95% of the folks will be sucking the well dry, deal with it...you whining undertaxed, over priveledged citizen of the global economy.
Respectfully,
Joe Biden
P.S. Of course, this list of patriots also includes members of the military, soccer moms, working Americans, elder Americans, baseball dads, self employed, unemployed, office clerks, linemen, public workers, private workers, factory workers, gardners, doctors, nurses, lawyers....and everyone else making under $250k/year.
Isn't it 'patriotic' to give what you should and take what you need? Isn't it patriotic to create jobs, contribute to the government, and give something back?
Joe Biden -- pinhead.
Respectfully,
Joe Biden
P.S. Of course, this list of patriots also includes members of the military, soccer moms, working Americans, elder Americans, baseball dads, self employed, unemployed, office clerks, linemen, public workers, private workers, factory workers, gardners, doctors, nurses, lawyers....and everyone else making under $250k/year.
Isn't it 'patriotic' to give what you should and take what you need? Isn't it patriotic to create jobs, contribute to the government, and give something back?
Joe Biden -- pinhead.
Monday, September 15, 2008
Uncommon Sense from Guest Editor George Lake...
It’s been a pretty wild couple weeks in politics! Obama gave a good speech at the Democratic convention and got his bounce but I’d have to describe it as pretty standard democratic/populous content describing what government is going to give us, or do for us. Where was the “ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country” that another famous Democrat once stated in an inauguration speech??
Followed right behind this speech was the announcement of Sarah Palin to the McCain ticket. At first the generic and reasonable (as I have to add myself to this group and who cannot describe me as anything but reasonable!!) reaction was “who is this unknown” and is she going to be an embarrassment?? Everyone was initially questioning this choice (and whether McCain had lost his mind!),but she carried herself beautifully in her introductory speech.
Because of the way she handled herself in the initial spotlight and her fine address, I was perfectly willing to wait and get more input on her background, accomplishments, and positions before I made a decision about her. I can’t say our mainstream media has taken the same position. She has been pilloried and even slandered by supposedly mainstream media for the whole week before her nomination speech. I truly feel that large portions of our media were bent on destroying her. (Case in point is the NY Times- after not even commenting on John Edward’s affair until it was well known, published 3 articles on their FRONT page on Sarah Palin mostly using the fact that her 17 year old daughter is pregnant to question McCain’s choice and her ability to be VP). Also, quickly discussed in the mainstream media was some crazy blogger’s assertion that Sarah was not the one that had Trig (the baby with Down’s Syndrome) but it was in fact her 17 yr old daughter’s baby!!!
By the time the Governor gave her speech at the RNC, people could have been forgiven if they were watching just to see a total simpleton come on stage and completely embarrass herself. But the results could not have been more polar opposite. What we saw was an extremely competent PERSON who has a track record of reform in Alaska that covers both ethics and budgetary matters. I will readily admit she has little in the way of foreign affairs experience BUT she is being considered for the VP slot NOT the President! Obama also has a complete scarcity of foreign policy experience and he indirectly acknowledged this by picking Biden as his running mate. People can like Obama as a man but it must be acknowledged that he has very little in the way of any accomplishments or public background that would qualify him for President, at least by historical standards.
I know there are quite a few that are tired of Bush and can’t stand some of his positions especially in the way he has prosecuted the war on terrorism. This would lead people to vote for anybody but Bush. I ask that you reflect on your upcoming decision and consider how McCain has had some very public disagreements with Bush on some of these matters. McCain came out publicly against “torture” and what Bush was doing or had done. He also is for closing “Gitmo”. Now I’m not sure I agree with either of these positions by McCain, but it does show he makes his own decisions and would not simply be another Bush. The Democrats are trying to make McCain synonymous to Bush but this defies almost a decade of reports of McCain liking the “maverick” label and “even enjoying putting a finger in the Republican’s eye”.
McCain also took a very public stand on the “surge” back in the darkest days when it looked like the Iraqi war was getting away from us. He pushed to make it happen. Both Obama and Biden were adamantly against the surge which by this time had become the popular choice. Their solution was to simply put together a timeline to get the troops out. This would have been catastrophic to America’s national interest and to world stability.
McCain pushed for the surge and the results have been “more than anyone could have hoped for” as Obama recently admitted and stated on the O’Reilly factor while at the same time adamantly refusing to admit that NOT backing the surge was a mistake by him.
I am confident McCain can bring about the “change” from Bush that people want while at the same time having the experience and record WE NEED on foreign affairs in these dangerous times. I hope everyone can consider this as they form their decisions on the next President.
Followed right behind this speech was the announcement of Sarah Palin to the McCain ticket. At first the generic and reasonable (as I have to add myself to this group and who cannot describe me as anything but reasonable!!) reaction was “who is this unknown” and is she going to be an embarrassment?? Everyone was initially questioning this choice (and whether McCain had lost his mind!),but she carried herself beautifully in her introductory speech.
Because of the way she handled herself in the initial spotlight and her fine address, I was perfectly willing to wait and get more input on her background, accomplishments, and positions before I made a decision about her. I can’t say our mainstream media has taken the same position. She has been pilloried and even slandered by supposedly mainstream media for the whole week before her nomination speech. I truly feel that large portions of our media were bent on destroying her. (Case in point is the NY Times- after not even commenting on John Edward’s affair until it was well known, published 3 articles on their FRONT page on Sarah Palin mostly using the fact that her 17 year old daughter is pregnant to question McCain’s choice and her ability to be VP). Also, quickly discussed in the mainstream media was some crazy blogger’s assertion that Sarah was not the one that had Trig (the baby with Down’s Syndrome) but it was in fact her 17 yr old daughter’s baby!!!
By the time the Governor gave her speech at the RNC, people could have been forgiven if they were watching just to see a total simpleton come on stage and completely embarrass herself. But the results could not have been more polar opposite. What we saw was an extremely competent PERSON who has a track record of reform in Alaska that covers both ethics and budgetary matters. I will readily admit she has little in the way of foreign affairs experience BUT she is being considered for the VP slot NOT the President! Obama also has a complete scarcity of foreign policy experience and he indirectly acknowledged this by picking Biden as his running mate. People can like Obama as a man but it must be acknowledged that he has very little in the way of any accomplishments or public background that would qualify him for President, at least by historical standards.
I know there are quite a few that are tired of Bush and can’t stand some of his positions especially in the way he has prosecuted the war on terrorism. This would lead people to vote for anybody but Bush. I ask that you reflect on your upcoming decision and consider how McCain has had some very public disagreements with Bush on some of these matters. McCain came out publicly against “torture” and what Bush was doing or had done. He also is for closing “Gitmo”. Now I’m not sure I agree with either of these positions by McCain, but it does show he makes his own decisions and would not simply be another Bush. The Democrats are trying to make McCain synonymous to Bush but this defies almost a decade of reports of McCain liking the “maverick” label and “even enjoying putting a finger in the Republican’s eye”.
McCain also took a very public stand on the “surge” back in the darkest days when it looked like the Iraqi war was getting away from us. He pushed to make it happen. Both Obama and Biden were adamantly against the surge which by this time had become the popular choice. Their solution was to simply put together a timeline to get the troops out. This would have been catastrophic to America’s national interest and to world stability.
McCain pushed for the surge and the results have been “more than anyone could have hoped for” as Obama recently admitted and stated on the O’Reilly factor while at the same time adamantly refusing to admit that NOT backing the surge was a mistake by him.
I am confident McCain can bring about the “change” from Bush that people want while at the same time having the experience and record WE NEED on foreign affairs in these dangerous times. I hope everyone can consider this as they form their decisions on the next President.
Friday, September 5, 2008
It Ain't Supposed to be This Way....
BHO is under the gun....and the press is turning. Simply look at the images now appearing in the press. No longer are the Savior's eyes gazing towards the hopeful heavens, but now have been humbled and are forced downward. No longer are his arms outstretched in an worldwide embrace of the dis-enfranchised...but now simply grasp a napkin to wipe his brow.
McCAIN/Palin have driven a stake through the heart of the Great Savior...Now, BHO actually has to work at it...and stumble, and fumble, and pretend he is still the chosen one. Game On!
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Barracuda?
Tough; determined; driven; conviction; respect; maverick; honest; unafraid; unimpressed; unknown; no comparison; grounded; smart; sacrifice; executive; seasoned; attitude; on-course; realistic; caring; mother; CEO; Alaskan; rugged; individualistic; Mayor; Governor; elected; respected; fiesty; hockey; stunning; fresh; leader; Chairwoman; energy; natural resource; self made; America; family.
Bring it on!
BHO: Abandoner in Chief, Commander in Speak...
This is taken from another entry, but I felt it deserved a headline...
On 4/22/08 he NO VOTED on this:
A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to enhance life insurance benefits for disabled veterans, and for other purposes.
...on 4/23/08 he voted YEAH on this:
A bill to amend title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 to clarify that adiscriminatory compensation decision or other practice that is unlawful under such Acts occurs each time compensation is paid pursuant to the discriminatory compensation decision or other practice, and for other purposes.
...and then back to screwing the veterans. One day later he NO VOTED this piece of legislation:
A bill to increase benefits for disabled U.S. veterans and provide a fair benefit to World War II Filipino veterans for their service to the United States.
On 4/22/08 he NO VOTED on this:
A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to enhance life insurance benefits for disabled veterans, and for other purposes.
...on 4/23/08 he voted YEAH on this:
A bill to amend title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 to clarify that adiscriminatory compensation decision or other practice that is unlawful under such Acts occurs each time compensation is paid pursuant to the discriminatory compensation decision or other practice, and for other purposes.
...and then back to screwing the veterans. One day later he NO VOTED this piece of legislation:
A bill to increase benefits for disabled U.S. veterans and provide a fair benefit to World War II Filipino veterans for their service to the United States.
Abandoner in Chief, Commander in Speak.
Obama's Record of 'NAY VOTING'...
In his early Congressional carreer, he actually voted....here are a few his NAY VOTES:
- To limit the amount of interest that can be charged on any extension of credit to 30 percent. BHO voted NAY.
- To promote job creation, family time, and small business preservation in the adjustment of the Federal minimum wage. BHO voted NAY.
- To express the sense of the Senate that failing to address the financial condition of Social Security will result in massive debt, deep benefit cuts and tax increases. BHO voted NAY.
- To repeal the 1993 tax increase on Social Security benefits. BHO voted NAY.
- To provide for local control for the sitting of windmills. BHO voted NAY.
- To express the sense of the Senate regarding management of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to lower the burden of gasoline prices on the economy of the United States and circumvent the efforts of OPEC to reap windfall profits. BHO voted NAY.
- To prohibit funds from being made available to the United States Agency for International Development for entertainment expenses. BHO voted NAY.
- A bill to prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others. BHO voted NAY.
- To cap non-defense, non-trust-fund, discretionary spending at the previous fiscal year's level, beginning with fiscal year 2007. HO voted NAY. - On the Amendment S.Amdt. 2895 to S. 2271 (USA PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments Act of 2006)To establish the enactment date of the Act. BHO voted NAY.
- An original bill to provide greater transparency in the legislative process. BHO voted NAY.
- To prohibit authorized committees and leadership PACs from employing the spouse or immediate family members of any candidate or Federal office holder connected to the committee. BHO voted NAY.
- To provide Congress a second look at wasteful spending by establishing enhance rescission authority under fast-track procedures. BHO Voted NAY.
- To limit the amount of interest that can be charged on any extension of credit to 30 percent. BHO voted NAY.
- To promote job creation, family time, and small business preservation in the adjustment of the Federal minimum wage. BHO voted NAY.
- To express the sense of the Senate that failing to address the financial condition of Social Security will result in massive debt, deep benefit cuts and tax increases. BHO voted NAY.
- To repeal the 1993 tax increase on Social Security benefits. BHO voted NAY.
- To provide for local control for the sitting of windmills. BHO voted NAY.
- To express the sense of the Senate regarding management of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to lower the burden of gasoline prices on the economy of the United States and circumvent the efforts of OPEC to reap windfall profits. BHO voted NAY.
- To prohibit funds from being made available to the United States Agency for International Development for entertainment expenses. BHO voted NAY.
- A bill to prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others. BHO voted NAY.
- To cap non-defense, non-trust-fund, discretionary spending at the previous fiscal year's level, beginning with fiscal year 2007. HO voted NAY. - On the Amendment S.Amdt. 2895 to S. 2271 (USA PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments Act of 2006)To establish the enactment date of the Act. BHO voted NAY.
- An original bill to provide greater transparency in the legislative process. BHO voted NAY.
- To prohibit authorized committees and leadership PACs from employing the spouse or immediate family members of any candidate or Federal office holder connected to the committee. BHO voted NAY.
- To provide Congress a second look at wasteful spending by establishing enhance rescission authority under fast-track procedures. BHO Voted NAY.
Obama's Record of 'NOT VOTING'...
Please avail yourself to BHO's voting record here: http://obama.senate.gov/votes/index.cfm?start=1. Now count the 'Not Voting' (so-called) votes. Take 20 minutes to scan the 196 votes since 01/08/07. Shoot back to the 109th Congress (January '05) for more musings...For some reason, back in 4/05, be began his NOT VOTING career.
Here are a few of BHO's NON VOTES:
- A resolution expressing sympathy for the people of the United Kingdom in the aftermath of the deadly terrorist attacks on London on July 7, 2005.
- Making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, to establish and rapidly implement regulations for State driver's license and identification document security standards, to prevent terrorists from abusing the asylum laws of the United States, to unify terrorism-related grounds for inadmissibility and removal, to ensure expeditious construction of the San Diego border fence, and for other purposes.
- To establish a bipartisan commission for the purpose of improving oversight and eliminating wasteful government spending under the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief.
- A bill to amend titles XVIII and XIX of the Social Security Act to extend expiring provisions under the Medicare Program, to improve beneficiary access to preventive and mental health services, to enhance low-income benefit programs, and to maintain access to care in rural areas, including pharmacy access, and for other purposes.
- A bill to provide needed housing reform and for other purposes.
- Gen. David H. Petraeus, in the Army, to be General
- Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, in the Army, to be General
- A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide incentives for energy production and conservation, to extend certain expiring provisions, to provide individual income tax relief, and for other purposes.
- A bill to provide energy price relief and hold oil companies and other entities accountable for their actions with regard to high energy prices, and for other purposes.
- A bill to direct the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to establish a program to decrease emissions of greenhouse gases, and for other purposes.
- An original concurrent resolution setting forth the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2009 and including the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2008 and 2010 through 2013.
- To improve educational assistance for members of the Armed Forces and veterans in order to enhance recruitment and retention for the Armed Forces.
- A bill to prohibit discrimination on the basis of genetic information with respect to health insurance and employment.
...and this is uncanny. On 4/22/08 he NO VOTED on this:
A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to enhance life insurance benefits for disabled veterans, and for other purposes.
...on 4/23/08 he voted YEAH on this:
A bill to amend title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 to clarify that adiscriminatory compensation decision or other practice that is unlawful under such Acts occurs each time compensation is paid pursuant to the discriminatory compensation decision or other practice, and for other purposes.
...and then back to screwing the veterans one day later he NO VOTED this piece of legislation:
- To increase benefits for disabled U.S. veterans and provide a fair benefit to World War II Filipino veterans for their service to the United States.
Here are a few of BHO's NON VOTES:
- A resolution expressing sympathy for the people of the United Kingdom in the aftermath of the deadly terrorist attacks on London on July 7, 2005.
- Making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, to establish and rapidly implement regulations for State driver's license and identification document security standards, to prevent terrorists from abusing the asylum laws of the United States, to unify terrorism-related grounds for inadmissibility and removal, to ensure expeditious construction of the San Diego border fence, and for other purposes.
- To establish a bipartisan commission for the purpose of improving oversight and eliminating wasteful government spending under the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief.
- A bill to amend titles XVIII and XIX of the Social Security Act to extend expiring provisions under the Medicare Program, to improve beneficiary access to preventive and mental health services, to enhance low-income benefit programs, and to maintain access to care in rural areas, including pharmacy access, and for other purposes.
- A bill to provide needed housing reform and for other purposes.
- Gen. David H. Petraeus, in the Army, to be General
- Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, in the Army, to be General
- A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide incentives for energy production and conservation, to extend certain expiring provisions, to provide individual income tax relief, and for other purposes.
- A bill to provide energy price relief and hold oil companies and other entities accountable for their actions with regard to high energy prices, and for other purposes.
- A bill to direct the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to establish a program to decrease emissions of greenhouse gases, and for other purposes.
- An original concurrent resolution setting forth the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2009 and including the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2008 and 2010 through 2013.
- To improve educational assistance for members of the Armed Forces and veterans in order to enhance recruitment and retention for the Armed Forces.
- A bill to prohibit discrimination on the basis of genetic information with respect to health insurance and employment.
...and this is uncanny. On 4/22/08 he NO VOTED on this:
A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to enhance life insurance benefits for disabled veterans, and for other purposes.
...on 4/23/08 he voted YEAH on this:
A bill to amend title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 to clarify that adiscriminatory compensation decision or other practice that is unlawful under such Acts occurs each time compensation is paid pursuant to the discriminatory compensation decision or other practice, and for other purposes.
...and then back to screwing the veterans one day later he NO VOTED this piece of legislation:
- To increase benefits for disabled U.S. veterans and provide a fair benefit to World War II Filipino veterans for their service to the United States.
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Biden Bites Off More Than He Can Eschew....
es·chew: to abstain or keep away from; shun; avoid: to eschew evil.
Joe Biden has done it again. He can't help himself...he could not keep his mouth shut long enough.... even 'Slick Willy' refrained from personal attacks this time!!! But Biden? ...say it ain't so, Joe...
Why, just a few months ago, John McCain was someone with whom Biden would "proudly have shared the Presidential ticket". Not now. Times change quickly when the political winds blow up the skirts of the misinformed. Tonight, he has stabbed his good friend and colleague in the back. Not surprising I guess, for these Damn Democrats are desperate. It is now very obvious that they are having trouble identifying and setting their sights on target John McCain.
Joe Biden has done it again. He can't help himself...he could not keep his mouth shut long enough.... even 'Slick Willy' refrained from personal attacks this time!!! But Biden? ...say it ain't so, Joe...
Why, just a few months ago, John McCain was someone with whom Biden would "proudly have shared the Presidential ticket". Not now. Times change quickly when the political winds blow up the skirts of the misinformed. Tonight, he has stabbed his good friend and colleague in the back. Not surprising I guess, for these Damn Democrats are desperate. It is now very obvious that they are having trouble identifying and setting their sights on target John McCain.
..and they are also having swift boatloads of trouble puffing up the Obama resume, or shall we say, reference sheet. I enjoyed Biden's initial part of the speech, but the direct, personal attack on McCain was way, way out of line. It will backfire on him.
And what is this about President Clinton "putting people first?" John Kerry...patriotism? Huh? How could Barack Obama be right,as Joe Biden quipped, when he wasn't even around when the Iraq war started. Who proved Barack Obama right? He's only been in the senate for such a short time? What the HELL is Joe Biden talking about?!?!?!?!? Are these people fools?
I am praying for rain at Mile High Stadium....can I get a hallelujah? Can someone give me an AMEN?Thursday, August 21, 2008
I say again, Emperor Obama Has No Close (3/4/08 post)...
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - In a sharp turnaround, Republican John McCain has opened a 5-point lead on Democrat Barack Obama in the U.S. presidential race and is seen as a stronger manager of the economy, according to a Reuters/Zogby poll released on Wednesday.
Friday, August 1, 2008
Hollywood Heaps Hypocritical Hoopla Upon Hussein
It seems that Hollywood is more upset about the latest McCAIN ad depicting a few seconds of Spears, Hilton and BHO as Hollywood hype.
Where is the outrage for the Ludacris' song/video otherwise that's hit the airwaves?
lu·di·crous
/ˈludɪkrəs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[loo-di-kruhs] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
causing laughter because of absurdity; provoking or deserving derision; ridiculous; laughable: a ludicrous lack of efficiency.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
