Does anybody seriously believe a President McCain would be no worse than Obama?

[liberalpragmatist]

I see an awful lot of people on DU claiming that nothing has changed and that having a Democrat in the White House and Democrats in control of Congress is useless.

Does anybody seriously believe that a President McCain or a Republican Congress would be doing anything similar to what Obama is doing? Do people seriously believe that this administration is no different than the last one?

I'm aware that people are frustrated over aspects of Obama's policy agenda. But way too many people are making the perfect the enemy of the good and imagining that Obama - or ANY president - can completely change the country 180 degrees in a matter of months.

Look - I'm not saying I agree with everything that's being done. I think Obama has been too timid on financial reform and the banking bailout - I think the large banks need to be nationalized and broken up into smaller, more tightly-regulated entities. I think he's slow-walking DADT repeal without much justification. I think he ought to support a truth commission and torture prosecutions where possible. I think the stimulus should have included fewer tax cuts and more funding for local governments and transit. I oppose his plan for preventive detention. I'm wary of his Afghanistan/Pakistan plan, willing to give him about a year to see if he can turn things around but very worried this may be his Vietnam.

But compared to ANY Republican administration - and even the Clinton Administration - this one is a breath of fresh air. We're for the first time getting a serious investment in high speed rail (though it's still far off from European and Japanese levels of funding). We're going to get universal health care - and yes, I may support it even if it's not single-payer, because my priority for now is getting everybody covered; if the only way to do that is a tightly-related market with no exclusions for preexisting conditions, community-rating, and an optional-public plan than I'm absolutely in favor. Even the current cap and trade bill, though weaker than any of us would like, is still a fairly strong bill as Paul Krugman has written. (Al Gore endorses it too.)

The point is that change is an arduous process and never in U.S. history do we get to sweeping changes all in one fell swoop. People cite FDR, but though FDR was radical compared to who came before, keep in mind that many people on the left opposed FDR and found him too accommodating and centrist. FDR opposed the FDIC. He never believed in Keynesianism and cut spending drastically in 1937 (which lead to the '37-'38 recession). Social security was initially a very skimpy program that exempted half the working-age population. He never tackled civil rights and backed away from universal health care.

Even by the 1960s, the U.S. poverty rate was at 25% and segregation was still the law of the land throughout the South. It took until the late '60s and early '70s to reach the apex of New Deal liberalism - over 30 years AFTER Franklin Roosevelt.

Moreover, plenty of people expect to just be able to impose a progressive utopia single-handedly. Get 100 people - even 100 progressives into a room - and try to make them agree on everything. Now imagine that writ large in a Congress that is structurally designed to favor the views of small states and agricultural regions that are more conservative and see how far you get.

I suspect that even a "successful" two-term Obama presidency will leave plenty of things undone. It will leave some programs that will be excellent and some that will fall short and need improvement. It will leave other problems untackled. This isn't a call for complacency, but a call that ALL change and reform takes time, sometimes requires compromises, and will never achieve perfection in one fell swoop. Why people seem to think that Obama can fix everything that's wrong in this country in 4 months is beyond me. My all means, oppose him where its warranted, but spare me that Obama=Bush or Obama=McCain nonsense.

[Captain Hilts]

1. You have to learn to ignore fringe idiots who say stuff like that. nt

[omega minimo]

23. nobody says that

[glitch]

37. Course not. If they did then this wouldn't be a

strawman alert!

edit: that'll teach me to read the entire thread first (ok prolly not), you & QC already pointed this strawman out down thread.
:toast:

[omega minimo]

40. yeah but

you pointed out the Strawbear! :pals:

[glitch]

42. I did. Strawbears are so CUUUTE! :) nt

[TZ]

41. "bush lite"

Someone called Obama that the other day. So NO this post is NOT a strawman

[glitch]

43. You're right. It's a strawbear. Big difference, I stand corrected. nt

[omega minimo]

45. That's one example you saw. The OP is way over the top, like all the others, in portraying this

If it -- and all the other OP's just like it -- wasn't, more of us would be seeing these extreme comments.

As LostInVA pointed out below........

[onehandle]

2. President McCain would have been Awesome!

Then my wife and I would have the excuse to move to Europe.

I could be in Paris right now!

Damn you, Obama!

[DeeDeeNY]

32. LOL

Good one!!

[Kablooie]

62. But not half as awesome as his VP! Whoo hooo!! Wouldn't the world be happy then!

[old mark]

68. Right! She could have gone to visit the Queen....

what fun that would have been.

Reassuring Europe that we are going to pull ourselves out of financial doom by magic. Oh, the happiness they would have felt to see VP Palin!


mark

[demwing]

3. Thank you

warm K&Rs :)

[Divine Discontent]

4. well, we'll all talk after 4 years and see what came about, however,

in defense of the argument that it's more of the same - take away all the photos, video, voice of Obama, and merely look at the outcome on policy (military, justice issues, bank bailouts, and some other) - and you'd be hard pressed to say that McSame would've had any different of an outcome. There are numerous differences between the current Pres & VP, than what would have been under a (gulp) McSame & Pain Administration - numerous - but, still, there are plenty of frustrating results on several issues in just 4 months. Let's hope for continued progressive movement on issues from this administration.

[peace13]

10. You have left out the world's view of the US.

I think the planet heaved a sigh of relief when McCain was defeated and I do not minimize this. I agree with some of what you say but you have left out some of the work that Obama has done to correct the ills of *.

[Divine Discontent]

13. Thank you for an intelligent reasoned response. I am glad you see what I say, and thank you for

adding in that he, as I only eluded minimally to, has done some things different. However, the world is STILL watching - and they don't like what they see about the ZERO response to the mass torture of captives, and their relatives (the rapes, sexual torture), and thought Pres. Obama would do something about it.

[peace13]

28. I fear the world will have to bring justice in this case.

If Obama intends on ignoring the torture issue there will be repercussions.

[T Wolf]

5. Bullshit. Has any real lib actually said that? The real shame is that Obama could have done

a lot more, but has not - and shows no intention of doing so.

Just like the snarky pony meme, this "argument" seeks to dismiss progressive disappointment at the actions and direction the Obama administration is taking.

There are many of us who are regretting the lost opportunity to really change things for the better.

We will be ignored, ridiculed and insulted for the next 3 1/2 years - until our dollars, effort, and votes are needed again.

So don't throw that McCain bullshit around.

[liberalpragmatist]

22. I see him largely doing what he promised to do

Which, for all its flaws, is still a hell of a lot better than what we had before and what we'd be getting with a McCain Administration. This is an agenda that is far bolder than anything Clinton accomplished, even when he had a Democratic Congress.

The odds look very good for health care reform, for example - and I'll admit that I'm one of those who isn't a single-payer purist, for while I like the idea of a single-payer system, for the time being my priority is getting everybody covered, ending exclusions based on preexisting conditions, putting in place community-rating, and having a public plan attached.

And given the structural impediments to sweeping change in the U.S., I'm highly skeptical that on a broad range of issues anything more progressive could be pushed.

Again, that isn't to say there aren't things I disagree with or areas where I think he should push harder. Like I said, I completely disagree with him on the need for a torture commission. But I don't expect to be totally wowed by ANY administration and I suspect that a Dennis Kucinich-lead administration would be no better at getting all of his vaunted progressive ideas through Congress.

[Infinite Hope]

75. I've seen/heard many saying Obama is no different than Bush. n/t

[jgraz]

6. No one seriously believes that

However, there are many people on this board who believe Obama should not be criticized when he follows policies that are exactly in agreement with those of George W. Bush or John McCain. I submit that they hold an equally extreme position.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

7. You might want to edit your post title to "worse" instead of "better".

[KansDem]

8. I actually believe Vice-President Biden is better than Vice-President Palin.

And to Hell with the media who tries to tell us every four years that the choice for vice-president doesn't matter to most Americans.

[lumberjack_jeff]

9. Yes. I seriously believe that McCain would be no better. n/t

[DrToast]

11. McCain would be much better...

...for late night comedians.

[LiberalFighter]

14. McCain would be much better...

1) If he smoked pot.
2) If he glued his hands to his butt.
3) If he hadn't crashed his fighter jets.
4) If he had parachuted into every campaign event and if he had become President parachuted into the lawn of the White House every day.
5) If Sarah Palin had kissed him on the lips after each campaign speech and then french kissed him.
6) If he had done the moon walk or break dance.
7) If he knew how to use a computer.
8) If his wife wasn't such a stiff barbie doll.

[LiberalFighter]

12. Those that say that a Democrat in the White House is no better than a Republican

1) Don't know what each President has done or not done.
2) Don't know who each President has appointed at positions below the Cabinet Secretary level.
3) Don't know how their government works.
4) Don't read up on much of the issues or news pertaining to their government.
5) Are most likely to vote once every 4 years and then figure they did their duty.
6) Are most likely not to write their congressional representatives.
7) Are most likely to forget what the last Democrat did for them.

[MessiahRp]

15. I haven't even seen that suggested....

Seems like a pretty piss poor argument against those who are rightfully unhappy with some or a lot of the decisions made by the Obama Administration. Regardless of how tempered he was when discussing progressive policy ideas, when you are talking about 8 years of far right wing rule and you are talking about change, people are thinking CHANGE... real CHANGE... not just a sidestep to the middle which doesn't really change much at all.

Rp

[vaberella]

66. What would you say when someone says, "Obama=Bush?"

Which I've seen said several times.

[QC]

16. The last time I saw this many straw men was at the Halloween barn dance.

[omega minimo]

17. Strawman and flamebait. Dangerous combination.

[QC]

19. That can burn the barn right down.

I hope they manage to get Ole Buttercup out in time!

[omega minimo]

21. what'll the cows do when they come home?

:wow:

[QC]

24. They'll shut up if they know what's good for them.

We got enough complaining around here as it is!

[omega minimo]

25. LOL What if they're member of

MooooooooooveOn.org ? :shrug:

[QC]

26. Damn far left! n/t

[omega minimo]

27. OUT

in damn far left field!!

[HamdenRice]

31. I disagree with the characterization of the OP, but

this is really funny: "Strawman and flamebait. Dangerous combination."

[omega minimo]

33. I am happy

to brighten your day, HR :toast:

[HamdenRice]

36. Back at ya

:toast:

[La Lioness Priyanka]

18. i agree.

[liberalpragmatist]

47. I don't think it's a strawman at all

You're right that nobody has explicitly said this. But post after post on DU is "where's the change I was looking for," or writing that nothing has changed, implying that Obama is no better than Bush or McCain.

Hell, right on GD:P right now, there's a post favorably citing a column by Ted Rall calling for Obama to resign which got 9 recs. Thankfully, it was shut down.

[liberalpragmatist]

48. I don't think it's a strawman at all

You're right that nobody has explicitly said this. But post after post on DU is "where's the change I was looking for," or writing that nothing has changed, implying that Obama is no better than Bush or McCain.

Hell, right on GD-P right now, there's a post favorably citing a column by Ted Rall calling for Obama to resign which got 9 recs. Thankfully, it was shut down.

[Arkana]

20. He'd be a lot fucking worse.

Because he'd be dead right now, and Sarah Barracuda would be the 45th President.

And we'd live in a Fallout 3-like post-apocalyptic world.

[Jennicut]

29. Palin would be Prez as McLame would have died from sheer stress

Seriously though, McCain was so old and doddering that he would not be able to deal with the multiple problems that Obama has to deal with every day. McCain was clueless on the economy. There would be no stimulus, just more tax cuts. We would get another conservative Supreme Court Justice, we would never be out of Iraq (not just in 1 1/2 to 2 years), abortion would be harder and harder to get, health care reform would never even be attempted.
This is a Bush and Gore are the same argument....it worked out really well there, don't some of you think?

[centristgrandpa]

52. palin's turkey interview; priceless

i think most misunderestimate ms. hillbilly shopper palin. she's a brilliant uncomplicated idiot whose foreign experience is second only to "joke the plumber". :shrug:

[Jennicut]

56. LOL.

I will take Joe the Biden any day over Sarah the Turkey Slaughterer.

[centristgrandpa]

61. cryptozoology....

Was that gobble-gobble interview beyond words, or on the office couch with the "giant urban SasQuatcH", only a ms. palin moment...:dilemma:

[HamdenRice]

30. There are some doomsday, "let it failers" who would have liked gramps to totally destroy the economy

The fact that Obama may be preventing a complete collapse of the economy seems to irk certain kinds of "progressives" who had hoped the government would "let it fail."

Obama is preventing the ultimate working out of the inevitable contradictions of capitalism, I suppose, from a certain perspective.

[Cha]

34. I see crap like that all over

the place, here..not in real life.

Who knows what their agenda is or if they just like to whine hyperbolically.

[frylock]

35. i do..

i mean, that's what you wanted to hear, right?

[LostinVA]

38. No non-troll has EVER said anything like that

[cali]

50. a non troll just posted a ted rail piece that said Obama is a monster

and rotten inside. The post got 9 recs. people who are not trolls do indeed post some pretty loony shit.

[LostinVA]

57. I don't see it, which means I have them on Ignore

Which means there's a reason there are on Ignore.

[iamthebandfanman]

39. whats so hard to understand?

just because we have disagreements with Obama doesnt mean we wanted the other guy to win.


Whats up with this faux premise?

sounds like someones deseperate to be heard around du! ;)


it should suprise noone that a politician is acting like a politician.

[Vinca]

44. I would feel a whole lot better about the Democratic majority

in Congress if Harry Reid was replaced with a vertebrate.

[Harry Monroe]

46. Much, much worse.

Even worse than the Bush Presidency. McCain would have kicked the bucket by now from all the stress and Palin would be sitting in the White House. She would have made Bush look like Albert Einstein. I could not think of a worse scenario than her having the finger on the button and the leader of this country. I shudder to even think of such a scenario.

[Bucky]

49. When you say *a* President McCain, are you talking about John or Meghan?

Not that that would change my answer...

[Umbram]

54. Probably the one that...

actually ran for POTUS and is actually old enough to be constitutionally eligible. Just a guess.

[ljm2002]

51. Being disappointed in Obama...

...does not equate to stating that McCain would have been as good (or bad) a President.

I'm actually pretty tired of the old "the perfect is the enemy of the good" argument. Sometimes that is true; it is not, however, a truism that applies to every case. You could have made that argument, for example, to defend the "separate but equal" policy: you could have said, well, sure, ideally we would be an integrated society, but since that is never going to happen, why not fight for more resources for the "separate but equal" schools?

This "the perfect is the enemy of the good" argument is always, always used by so-called "moderates" (read: right/conservative) against so-called "radicals" (read: left/progressive).

Claiming that change is an arduous process does not imply that it can only be done incrementally. In fact, just like evolution itself, important changes often happen in sudden leaps. It is not a matter of imposing a "progressive utopia", but rather, a matter of trying to tip the scales towards that ideal.

Personally, I'm on the side of the scale-tippers. That includes criticisms of the status quo, and whoever is upholding it, especially when the status quo stinks. I would point to the illogical, lopsided and much too costly bailout of the financial industry as Exhibit A, while leaving middle-class (not to mention lower-class) Americans out in the cold, relief-wise. Not an auspicious beginning for an administration that promised "change".

I won't criticize everything Obama does, and I know full well that McCain would have been unimaginably worse -- especially knowing that Caribou Barbie was waiting in the wings. That does not protect him from criticism. We don't have McCain, we do have Obama; the argument that "well he's better than McCain, so stop saying that!" is wearing thin. He's the President, and as one former President famously said, "If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen."

Also I think that Obama can stand the heat quite well, so I'm not sure why it is we're all supposed to hang our heads and apologize for criticizing His Hol... er, the President.

[Doctor_J]

53. No, BUT

he is still charming the voters unprecedently. With a 65% approval, we're hoping he'll be more aggressive in undoing Bush's most heinous disasters.

[Political Heretic]

55. This is completely irrelevant. Dems control both houses and the Presidency. Therefore,

With Democrats controlling both houses of Congress and having a Democratic President the argument that "hey at least its not as BAD as McCain" is complete and utter bullshit.

Just because I am deeply unhappy with more decisions and actions of this President so far than I am happy does not make an "he's better than McCain" argument justifiable.

And yes, I'm sorry but I won't be bullied into silence, there are a shocking number of areas where yes I do believe that McCain would have done the same things Obama is doing and the differences so far between what we would have seen with a McCain presidency and what we are seeing with an Obama one are not as stark as I would have expected given what I listened to and saw during the campaign.

Why would I say something like this?


Single Payer is left off the table. The administration EPA is tossing out ridiculous environment screwing policy. We are escalating wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan and leaving residual bases and forces in Iraq. We're making Bush-era legal arguments against government transparency, and against civil liberties, We're "moving forward" on the biggest federal crime scandal in the history of our government, proving that there is no accountability and no meaning to the concept of "law" when you have enough power.

The Wall Street bailout is a disgrace to working America, designed to reinflate a false bubble for rich people without fixing the fundamental flaws and excesses that will ultimately bring our economy to complete collapse (you can't ask for a bigger warning sign than what we've just experienced, and instead of really doing something about it, we've punted the problem to our children while propping up the very people who are doing the most damage). There is silence on EFCA and push make concessions to Business. Don't Ask Don't Tell is off the Table. So far the highlight of educational policy reform is the failed GOP idea of so-called "merit" pay.

It's not that positive things haven't happened. It's that the sheer contrast between the scale of the positive things that have happened, vs. the extensive number of major issues on which the exact opposite of anything I could support has happened is simply shocking. It's that every morning I get headlines and find more bad news about something this administration is doing that I completely oppose.


How wall street is handled, how torture is handled, how the EPA is functioning to date, how LGBTQ issues are being handled (i.e. they are not being handled, which is exactly what McCain would have done - just ignored it) how EFCA is being handled, how Afghanistan AND Iraq is being handled all look disturbingly similar. Not exactly the same. But too close to the same to be acceptable.

Are there other areas where the two presidencies would be radically different. Of course there are! I continue to be grateful that McCain is not president. But at the same time I am also deeply disappointed that the change president has so far mostly reinforced the same political status quo.

[BzaDem]

59. You are attacking Obama for doing much of what he said he would do.

For a few examples, he specifically aired ads against Single Payer (and never once said he would leave it on the table). He campaigned on escalating the war in Afghanistan. He specifically said he wanted to look forward instead of backward (which is as close to saying "I will not prosecute" as he could have come). He supported and VOTED FOR the bailout in the campaign. He voted for FISA reform and telecom immunity. He campaigned on merit pay in the election.

So for you to say "the differences so far between what we would have seen with a McCain presidency and what we are seeing with an Obama one are not as stark as I would have expected given what I listened to and saw during the campaign," one has to ask where you were getting your news during the campaign.

It seems that your real problem is that Obama simply doesn't share your views on many issues (both in the campaign and now). And that is certainly a valid problem. Pusing Obama from the left is a good thing. And if after 4 years you are not satisfied, you have the opportunity to vote for an opponent in the primary. "McCain/Romney/Palin would be better than Obama" is not a justifiable excuse for voting for Obama in the primary.

However, once the general election comes around (assuming Obama is renominated), not only is "McCain/Romney/Palin would be better than Obama" a valid excuse, it is the ONLY thing that matters. General elections are of course elections where you vote for the "least bad" option (since no candidate is perfect), and that is really all general elections are. Anyone who thinks that they can put their fingers in their ears, sing la la la, and vote for a third party candidate at that point is simply in denial about the fact that their chosen candidate didn't win in the primary. I of course am not implying that you are one of these people; you have stated that you are glad McCain is not president (and I am assuming that would mean you would vote to re-elect Obama if he wins renomination). But for those that won't vote for Obama in the general election, Obama being better than the Republican candidate is the only characteristic that is relevant. Obama should not cater to or coddle irrational so-called Democrats who remain in denial about the Primaries a bit too long - doing so would completely go against Obama's goal of getting re-elected.

[Political Heretic]

60. And?

Let's assume for the moment, that you're right, and Obama is doing exactly what he said he would do?

So what? It is still, in my opinion, wrong.

You seem to be granting that this is OK, when you write:


"It seems that your real problem is that Obama simply doesn't share your views on many issues (both in the campaign and now). And that is certainly a valid problem. Pusing Obama from the left is a good thing. And if after 4 years you are not satisfied, you have the opportunity to vote for an opponent in the primary. "McCain/Romney/Palin would be better than Obama" is not a justifiable excuse for voting for Obama in the primary."


I have more options available to me than that. The Democrats have never had a better time than now to show what they are truly made of. With both houses of congress, a democratic president, only 21% of people identifying themselves with the GOP and a GOP in total disarray, this is the hour where the Democrats could use their powder and not just "keep their powder dry." They fact that they don't ought to cause people to conclude that they never will. There's literally nothing else to wait on.

Consequently, I'm not obligated to keep voting for politicians that don't represent me. And the differences between the two parties have proven to be not great enough to justify a "you must vote for x bad choice to avoid y worse choice" anymore. I have little faith left in national politics. Instead, it seems to me that the most valuable work being done on social and economic justice issues is happening outside of the domain of national party politics, on the ground in local communities.

The opinion that I am forming based on what has been going on, is that the national democratic party does not represent me any better than the republican party would. I don't harbor any false hopes about a third party emerging successfully in this system. Instead, the system seems to be to be broken beyond repair. I suppose its possible that I could casually go cast my vote when I think one person would be a slight improvement over another person - but basically I've lost any faith that national politics is anything but a tool of the elite to accomplish their agenda, no matter which corporate-sponsored party is in power.

[Teaser]

64. He/She's just doing it for lulz. don't take it seriously.

He/she thinks its funny to watch people overreact to his/her posts.

[Teaser]

63. I love your parody posts.

.

[vaberella]

69. You act like there are not several Dems who are anti any change and share

beliefs like Repubs. Whatever... To you Dems means they have the same idea which is in itself utter bullshit. They don't have the same ideas or beliefs and many Dems like Repubs are in the take. Please realize that before you assume because we have both for some reason things can get done. It can't, if it could Sanders cap on credit cards would have gone through. It did not.

You list all these things that have either not been handled or not handled the way you like. Wall Street, for it's handling seems to have worked out. Even Krugman seems to be supporting the moves and saying that. So that's one. AS for the other issues he has not IGNORED THEM. He said in a few cases they are not top priority in lieu of what he's dealing with now, but he will take care of them. As for health care, I've studed health economics and public finance...I've reached a point where I don't support single payer as much as I do universal. Secondly, there is a lot that needs fixing. People think single payer is the only way. It won't work when mentioned and most definitely will not go through the house.


Obama is having problems selling the public option. If he can't even get the public option; single payer won't see the light of day so get over it. And this is someone who doesn't have health insurance and hasn't had it for over 5 years.

[Political Heretic]

76. You and I don't want the same things.

[old mark]

58. No one in their right mind would honestly believe that. McCain/Palin

would be anything but a continued clusterfuck.

Anyone who says something that stupid is absoluetly fucking crazy.

mark

[solstice]

65. Obama has made it clear that he will NOT change many of the things that need changing

no matter HOW much time he has.

So why wait to call him on his many broken promises?

He is not just waiting for some mythical "right time" to make many changes that need making - he just WON'T MAKE THEM, PERIOD!

And frankly, high speed rail wasn't on my list.

Single payer health insurance, war crimes investigations, and the shitcanning of DADT and DOMA were.

[vaberella]

67. And here we have one. Fine...McCain is better than Obama. ~sigh~n/t

[solstice]

70. And here we have one with low reading comprehension skills. Since I did NOT remotely

say that.

And you do Obama no favors with your knee jerk attacks of those of us who actually expect him to keep his promises.

[vaberella]

71. When people say Obama=Bush they didn't say McCain was better, either.

But one gets the gist of where they're going. You notice the OP clearly asks do people honestly believe that McCain would be better. Rather than replying in the negative you give your explanation which basically leads the reader to interpret your statements as saying that McCain would be better. You don't say..."Yes he's better but he fails at...." Instead you go on and on about how negatively he approaches things and that's the end of it.

It's like your playing word games so when someone like myself calls you on it you can then play this angle of "low reading comprehension skills" which is a ridiculously weak argument. Most can see exactly what you were alluding too.

[solstice]

72. OP's whole post was an exercise in strawman building. There's a lot of that around here, I've

noticed.

A lot of people think they can shut up those of us who expect Obama to uphold the Democratic principles he ran on by labeling us McCain supporters, freepers, etc.

Well, it won't work.

As a Democrat, I will not lower my standards for ANYBODY. Not even Obama.

If you in your small-minded way want to believe that means I support, McCain, go ahead - give yourself an orgasm. I really don't care.

It's like when Repugs think they can control people by impugning their patriotism. Exact same tactics. And I refuse to be bullied or intimindated by it.

[katandmoon]

73. As someone who was recently accused of not voting for Obama -- THANK YOU.

It was flatly stated that I did not vote for Obama as though the person making the statement was actually in the voting booth with me. Say fucking what?

Exactly right that these are the same tactics employed by Republicans trotting out the "unpatriotic" accusation against strayers from their official line.

As if you can't be highly critical of a candidate you voted for, once he's in office and proceeds to backpedal on (or outright reverse positions on) many of the positions he held during the campaign that encouraged you to vote for him, just because he's not WORSE than McCain.

You know what? If I voted for McCain, I'd know exactly what I was voting for from the get-go. I wouldn't have any illusions. My problem with Obama is that what I voted for -- CHANGE -- isn't what I got. I got the same old, same old.

[LWolf]

74. "Making the perfect the enemy of the good"

If you must use tired political rhetoric to make your point, at least be accurate.

It's not "making the perfect the enemy of the good."

It's "making the good the enemy of the bad."

McCain/Palin? An obvious evil for the nation.

That doesn't automatically make Obama the "good."

"Not as bad" does not equal "good." It's still bad.

[Skidmore]

77. Only the trolls living under the bridge, and some of them believe

* should have been given a third term while others think Ralph was robbed.