McCain Will Win
October 28, 2008 / 10:49 am • By Dr. Melissa ClouthierWhen John McCain wins, won’t the world, Democrats and even establishment Republicans be shocked? I still say that McCain will win. Vote people. The last election came down to just over 500 votes.
I’m not the only one who believes McCain will triumph.
27 Responses to “McCain Will Win”
October 28 2008 / 11:20 am
Reply
Racist! Hater! Divider!
Don’t say this too loud. I want it to be a big surprise. McDS, PDS
October 28 2008 / 12:02 pm
Reply
Not sure it makes a whole lot of difference. If McCain was running as a Democrat, the members of that party would be praising his “moderation” to the sky. His politics are virtually indistinguishable from those of Hillary Clinton.
I listened to as much of the 3rd debate as I could stand, and what I heard was a Liberal trying to sound Republican, and a Communist trying to sound Moderate. And the Communist was doing a better job.
Don’t blame me, I voted Libertarian.
October 28 2008 / 12:29 pm
Reply
Sorry, TX CHL, but DAMNED STRAIGHT I blame YOU if Obama wins.
You just listen to the Obama tapes from 2001 and tell you don’t see the difference between voting for an out-and-out Communist radical and politicians you may not agree with, but that nevertheless love their country.
You just listen to the way Obama wants to subvert the Constitution, change the very concept of legal justice in America to something the Left calls “social justice,” and “economic justice,” and tell me how you’re going to pat yourself on the back for essentially sitting this one out.
October 28 2008 / 12:52 pm
Reply
I wonder what cup size Dr. Cauthier wears.
I’ll guess a C-cup.
October 28 2008 / 1:21 pm
Reply
Some guys every – single – one of us would vote for at http://fuanglada.wordpress.com/
.
along with a few words about the campaign…
October 28 2008 / 1:29 pm
Reply
From your mouth to God’s ear Dr. M.
October 28 2008 / 2:22 pm
Reply
During the 2000 campaign, on MSNBC’s “Hardball,” a young woman asked McCain why her father, a doctor, should be “penalized” by being “in a huge tax bracket.” McCain replied that “wealthy people can afford more” and that “the very wealthy, because they can afford tax lawyers and all kinds of loopholes, really don’t pay nearly as much as you think they do.”
The exchange continued:
YOUNG WOMAN: Are we getting closer and closer to, like, socialism and stuff?. . .
MCCAIN: Here’s what I really believe: That when you reach a certain level of comfort, there’s nothing wrong with paying somewhat more.
***
Funny how time flies, isn’t it?
October 28 2008 / 2:33 pm
Reply
Glynn,
You’re right. Your job is to convince my readers that McCain is a bigger socialist than Obama. That’s a tough sell, but you’re welcome to try.
There’s not a small government candidate in this bunch. Fiscal conservatives must hold their noses and make their voting decision for OTHER reasons than taxation since anyone who works or owns a business will be screwed.
Progressive taxation is redistribution. It’s just a matter how much and to whom.
October 28 2008 / 2:57 pm
Reply
Dr. Mel,
It isn’t Glynn’s job to point out the obvious, it smells and festers on it’s own quite well. The difference between McCain and Obama in spending will be readily apparent, but not in the way you are suggesting. If elected, McCain will continue to pour untold billions into Iraq (and therefore into the hands of private contractors from Bechtel to Blackwater). Where my taxes go is important to me. I am equally upset when my dollars go into black holes of non-functioning welfare systems or to military spending that has no rational outcome or benefit. Once we “establish” democracy in Iraq, what then? Will it last? If middleastern history bears out then probably not, and if it did, so what? Was the cost in human life and dollars worth it? Will Iraqi lives really be better? Will terrorists suddenly wake up and say “gee, we were so wrong…”? Will we really benefit in any fundamental way? There are currently thousands of Iraqis, many of them architects, engineers, doctors, etc. living in exile since this thing started. Most of them have lost everything and will not likely ever recover anything of their former lives. In interviews, most of them would gladly return to pre-invasion Iraq, even with Saddam in charge (you know, the guy Bush senior propped up). That’s saying something. But I digress – the point that I am making is that it’s all socialism. The rebuilding of Iraq with OUR dollars is socialism, pure and simple. The handout of $785B to corporate welfare whores with OUR dollars is socialism. Given the enormous cost of these two programs alone (that McCain will continue), how can you suggest that the degree of socialistic spending on the part of Obama will be to a higher degree?
October 28 2008 / 3:15 pm
Reply
There’s not a small government candidate in this bunch.
Not on the Presidential ticket, anyways.
Sarah Palin = Ronald Reagan in a skirt
October 28 2008 / 3:48 pm
Reply
Naq,
Sarah Palin = Ronald Reagan in a skirt
Great, another major spender. Reagan was one of the top three spending presidents of all time. Bush Sr. had to raise taxes to cover Reagan’s debts and therefore lost the ‘92 election. If Palin in a skirt = Reagan, then we’re all going to lose our pants.
October 28 2008 / 5:19 pm
Reply
Ronald Reagan in a skirt!
Fantastic.
Here is some reading for you:
http://men.style.com/gq/blogs/gqeditors/2008/10/palin-alone-abo.html
October 28 2008 / 6:06 pm
Reply
P.S.-
4,188 dead American soldiers as of today.
October 28 2008 / 8:38 pm
Reply
4,188 dead American soldiers as of today.
And lots more dead terrorists. Your point?
October 28 2008 / 8:47 pm
Reply
I work with a few people who already voted (early voting in NM), and voted for Obama. They were very surprised at the content of the tape released. I don’t think that would have tipped them the other way, but it may others.
I certainly hope McCain wins. My first political campaign that I worked on, the guy lost by 3%. Two years later (when the incumbent retired), he won handily, and has won ever since. However, I remember being at a post-election party in 1996 as state after state came in with Clinton’s smug mug on the screen – it was horrible. I hope to never have to go through something like that again.
October 28 2008 / 8:51 pm
Reply
And how many dead civilians do you think each one of those soldiers (including Airmen, Sailors, and Marines) bought us? Instead of sneering over their sacrifice, maybe you could thank God that it is they instead of you.
“No one has greater love than this, that someone would lay down his life for his friends.” – John 15:13 (HCSB)
October 28 2008 / 8:59 pm
Reply
Serious question.
Today, the McCain camp actually sent out Joe the Plumber on tour to wax forth on a host of issues he is stunning ignorant about.
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Joe_The_Plumber_attacks_Obama_would_1028.html
Joe’s attacks were so idiotic that FOX NEWS went so far as to defend Obama against Joe’s ravings.
My question is simple. Between Joe and Sarah, has the GOP just become the doofus party, or did George Bush already lock up that distinction?
Your thoughts . . .
October 28 2008 / 9:22 pm
Reply
I totally agree. McCain has to win and will win.
I find it very frightening that the media has downplayed the fact that we need to know WHO OBAMA IS! There is a lot of information available on the internet. Obama has a lot of unsavory connecitons that are alarming. He has been involved in violent attacks on innocent voters in Kenya. Obama has extreme left-wing views, which he is hiding.
Obama was a MILITANT ACTIVIST for poor blacks. This did not involve teaching them skills and showing them how to get out and earn money and work productively. It involved stirring up envy, greed, anger in them so that they would fight to get more tax dollars from productive Americans.
Obama stayed for twenty years in a “church” with a virullently anti- white racist pastor. I am white and I would walk out of any “church” that expressed that sort of venom against blacks.
Obama does not represent poor blacks, whites, middle-class people, the rich. It is hard to see who he really stands for. He elicits love and support from everyone; but if he is elected, we will see that he does not feel love or loyalty for anyone.
Obama will destroy America by taxing the middle class. The wealthy will not stick around to be abusively taxed by him; they will walk away. They are super mobile. The poor will not learn to be productive by getting bigger and bigger hand-outs.
But don’t take my word for it, look it up. When people scream “Let’s trust him and have a change. We don’t care what kind of change it is.”, I think of a film I saw of a young woman struggling to survive in Russia. She meets a nice friend who tells her that he can take her to Switzerland where she can get a good job. She goes with him and is confined and raped continuously in Switzerland. She wishes to escape to commit suicide, but is unable to do so.
Do not listen to Obama’s argument that if things are bad now, they can only get worse with McCain. They can get far far worse with Obama than anything you can imagine. He will kill initiative and productivity.
October 29 2008 / 9:15 am
Reply
That’s rude, inappropriate, and tasteless.
And I bet she wears them well, too…
October 29 2008 / 10:28 am
Reply
Daniel,
I wonder how many dead Iraqi women, kids and regular “Joes” have been killed as well. I noticed you quoted scripture to defend your position. Is this a holy war for you? Is this the crusades? Here’s a nice little story for you:
One of my former employees has a brother in Iraq. He is a three tour artillery sergeant. They received an assignment to shell some little town where the “terrorists” were and shelled the crap out of it. After the town was secure, he and several members of his unit went in to asess the damage. When they walked into town, one of the first things they saw was half a body (upper torso) fused to the hood of a car. In the insense heat of the shelling, this dismembered body had been thrown onto the hood, nearly upright, and fused to it. The body was that of a child. He said at that point he began to question the usefulness of this war. Small wonder.
I guess for guys like you, Daniel, innocent dead foreigners are just the price we’ll have to pay, right? After all, it’s God’s will isn’t it?
Unbelieveably, many of you still think that Iraq had something to do with 9-11. Nevermind that most of the hijackers were Saudis and that al queda was and is still based primarily out of Afghanistan (the forgotten war)and in the tribal regions of Pakistan. I would agree that there are probably more terorists in Iraq now than there ever were, primarily because they have been sent there from outside of the country by al queda and other wacko factions to have the opportunity to kill Americans. The commander of forces in Afghanistan recently said that he is woefully understaffed there. There are currently only 33,000 ground troops in Afghanistan, compared with 160,000 in Iraq. At this point, the troops in Afghanistan (where the real terrorists train and live) are barely able to hold ground, and the commander there has voiced that it is only a matter of time before the taliban (now allied with al queda) creeps back into the larger towns. The more troubling aspect of all of this is the takeover of the northwestern region of Pakistan by al queda. They have been embraced by both the taliban and the local tribal leaders there, and have publicly stated that their mission is to drive out the government of Pakistan, a country that has at least 20 nuclear warheads.
The real war is in Afghanistan, not Iraq. We have taken the bait (fed to us by Bush and Faux News) that the terrorist threat is from Iraq, when there is actually a far more imminent danger from the Afghan/Pakistan border regions. We have played into al queda’s plans quite well by ramping up Iraq and all but ignoring the mounting threat in Pakistan. Only a matter of time…
In any case Daniel (Naq too), since you believe that Iraq is a holy war please get off the computer and get thee down to you local army recruiter’s office and sign up. This way you can prove that you are more than an armchair patriot.
October 29 2008 / 10:52 am
Reply
Mr. Chuckles: I tried to sign up for the Marines when I was 18. I was denied entry due to medical reasons.
So you can leave the lame “chickenhawk” ad hominem attack alone, mmmKay?
War is always a tragedy. No one for the War in Iraq is “for war”, we just want the military to fight the Jihadis on their land and not on ours.
Kind of like you lefties say “well, no one is really FOR abortion*, they just want the choice”.
* not counting NOW, Planned Paranthood, NARAL, and anyone bitching that Sarah Palin didn’t abort Trig on DailyKos or DemocraticUnderground
Well, we’re not “for war”, we just want to kill the jihadists before they try and kill us.
As far as the “Iraq was not responsible for 9/11″ rehashed Democrat Talking Point – by the way, you forgot to lie and say we never found WMD – which is only true if you don’t count the Chemical Warheads and other WMD, let me remind you:
Saddam Hussein Had a Terrorist Training Facility in Salman Pak
He was paying families of Palestinian Suicide Bombers $25,000. You should note that Suicide Bombings in Israel decreased significantly when Saddam was taken out.
Saddam was filling Mass Graves and running Rape Rooms and other atrocities – worse than the reasons the Dems who think the US should storm Darfur give.
But by all means, keep deluding yourself that this was a War For Oil, or that we GOPers are idiots who think Saddam did 9/11.
It makes you much easier to beat on Election Day.
October 29 2008 / 12:05 pm
Reply
Naq,
Your link for “evidence” took me to a Faux News website, which used a quote from Sen. Rick Sanitorium. Oh well, I guess I shouldn’t be suprised…
Well, what a loss for the Marines. Guess there was nothing you could do, right?
You missed the point anyway. I am not anti-war, pro terrorist, pro abortion or any of that other red herring crap you just spewed. It’s just that I (and MANY others) believe the real long term threat is going to come from Afghanistan and Pakistan. Iraq at this point is a distraction from a very real threat, far greater than Saddam ever posed prior to our invasion. Saddam was effectively contained. Again, the jihadists are now in Iraq (a few anyway) POST 9-11. There are FAR more of these guys in Afghanistan, and they are self funding through the heroin trade (which has actually increased since our occupation – go figure…). This trade brings them millions of dollars to purchase weapons, recruit and buy out sympathy from Pakistanis. We can’t control the heroin production because as I said earlier, THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH TROOPS ON THE GROUND. Maybe now you will have heard me. Saddam is gone, and it’s time to focus on what we should have been doing all along, which should have been containing al queda in Afghanistan.
BTW – using your own justification for going into Iraq, you must be aware that there have been numerous murderous regimes that we have all but ingnored (Pol Pot, Amin, Pinochet, Kim Jung Il, ad naseum…). Are we now going to go after all of them as well or just the ones that have resources that we want. Yes, I believe that oil was a factor in going into Iraq. Oil has become a major factor since the rise of industrial power in China and India. You are a fool if you think it didn’t play into the decision to go into Iraq. Plenty of other countries abuse their citizens and still pose a far greater threat to US security than Iraq ever did, but we leave them alone (and hypocritically let their citizens suffer).
So do me a favor: I’ll spare you the chickenhawk label if you spare me the hypocritical “we did it for the poor suffering Iraqis” BS.
October 29 2008 / 5:24 pm
Reply
Glen, the difference is that McCain didn’t refer to “spreading the wealth around,” i.e., the redistribution of income from one person to another. Simply because most people would agree it’s OK for a billionaire to pay more toward a bridge, for example, than some poor person struggling to make his heating bill doesn’t mean they think it’s OK to soak any taxpayer in order to send his money in the form of a check to others.
October 29 2008 / 11:28 pm
Reply
It makes you much easier to beat on Election Day.
This site is a hoot. You guys couldn’t beat a rug this year with a nuclear powered rug beating machine that was designed by a crack team of rug beating specialists! Now you might manage to STEAL another election with all of those “miscalibrated” touch screen voting machines but to think you can win with Father Time/Baby New Year 08?!?
Seriously, you guys are TOO much! Bush has murdered the Republican brand and the only people left who don’t get that it’s over are a cowardly bunch of xenophobic fundagelical nutbags. Have fun shaking your fist at the sun and cursing the light for the next four years.
October 30 2008 / 4:32 am
Reply
You fuuuckiing Right wingnut cuuunts….Fascists…all of you…racists most of you…illiterate pieces of shit…most of you…Suck that Bush Coock all the way to hell…War Crimes trial is coming baby…I smell a wake up call! How many of you are going to refute your “savior” like Peter…Yeah…thought so…Your World has come to an end…and you only have yourself to blame…BooYah!
October 31 2008 / 3:27 pm
Reply
McCain will win because the election is rigged as usual. Not that that is a bad thing.
God have mercy on this country if we really left our fate in the hands of the people.
Lets face it. America is stupid. We can’t let her pick her own leader. Leave it to the guys who have been pulling the strings for centuries. They’ve done a relatively good job.
Hey doctor C, I think I need a check up.
Smart blondes are a turn on:-P
March 11 2009 / 4:09 am
Reply
what are the tax laws that are beneficial for doing this?