T1B

Those are your two choices Republicans. The rest have no chance of winning the nomination. Your choices are the Baptist snake oil salesman or the Mormon snake oil salesman.

Any one of the top 3 Dems will wipe the floor with either of those two clowns.

So which one is it Republicans?

There aren't 3 top DemocRats.

But whoever #1 turns out to be will probably plunger fuck either Romney or Huckabee without much effort

Never underestimate your country's ability to shit the bed just at the right moment.

There are literally no conditions under which I would vote for Huckabee. For any elective office.

Of course, I feel the same way about Hillary.

In theory, Bri, you should be absolutely right. In theory, that is.

In practice, however, I worry about what happens if either Hillary or Obama is our nominee. Hillary evokes such a visceral negative reaction in the Republican base that I think it will bring out the Deliverance wing of the Republican Party in droves. Same thing for a black man in general. I don't think these people will be too thrilled about voting for either Huckabee or Romney. But they will be more than happy to vote against either Hillary or Obama.

Let's also not forget that a drooling idiot like W should never have been elected, either. In theory, anyway. Much as I hate to admit it, Perk is right. Anyone who misunderestimates the capacity of the American electorate for extreme stupidity does so at his own risk.

That's why it's so important to vote for Edwards. Winning the election is Job One. And Edwards crushes any Republican with a reasonable chance of winning the Republican nomination in the general election.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:
That's why it's so important to vote for Edwards. .

Because shitting the bed is job #1


Aside from Kucinich, there's nobody else in either party besides Edwards who's dumber & phonier than Chimpy

BSmack wrote:Those are your two choices Republicans. The rest have no chance of winning the nomination.

It's waaay too early to be making a judgement like this, regardless of what happens in Iowa.

Anyone remember who won the '04 Dem caucus vote in Iowa?

Terry in Crapchester wrote: In practice, however, I worry about what happens if either Hillary or Obama is our nominee. Hillary evokes such a visceral negative reaction in the Republican base that I think it will bring out the Deliverance wing of the Republican Party in droves. Same thing for a black man in general. I don't think these people will be too thrilled about voting for either Huckabee or Romney. But they will be more than happy to vote against either Hillary or Obama.

maybe so, but I also tend to believe that if ever the time were ripe for either a woman or a black man to be elected President, that time would be now. And the fact that they're both running against each other at the same time sorta' cancels out that "visceral negative reaction" of which you speak, at least until after the nomination.

And quite frankly, I'd take either over Edwards to actually win the general election. Edwards comes across to me as slimy, disingenious, and disaffected. Not to be trusted.

Let's also not forget that a drooling idiot like W should never have been elected.

Huh? You were doing just fine up until that point, Crappy.

Why shouldn't he have been elected, not once, but twice? Because you think he's a drooling idiot? Too bad it doesn't matter what you think about W, because he was indeed legally elected.

Anyone who misunderestimates the capacity of the American electorate for extreme stupidity...

Sheesh. You think that you yourself, one person, has more wisdom than that of the collective American electorate?

Well shit, let's just amend the Constitution to where one TiC get's to decide who the next President should be.

No, wait... better yet, let's allow some Canuck to make that choice. So who's it gonna' be, Martard?

The "Anti-Endorsement"

The Concord Monitor broke with political tradition Sunday, telling readers in the state with the first presidential primary why they should not vote for Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney instead of whom they should support.

In a scathing anti-endorsement that called Romney a "disquieting figure," the New Hampshire newspaper's editorial board said he looks and acts like a presidential contender but "surely must be stopped" because he lacks the core philosophical beliefs to be a trustworthy president.

In particular, the newspaper noted the former Massachusetts governor's change of heart on such issues as abortion rights, stem-cell research and access to emergency contraception, as well as on signing an anti-tax pledge.

"When New Hampshire partisans are asked to defend the state's first-in-the-nation primary, we talk about our ability to see the candidates up close, ask tough questions and see through the baloney. If a candidate is a phony, we assure ourselves and the rest of the world, we'll know it," the newspaper said. "Mitt Romney is such a candidate. New Hampshire Republicans and independents must vote no."

Romney's campaign sloughed off the criticism and instead pointed to his endorsement Sunday by the Sioux City Journal in Iowa, the state whose Jan. 3 caucuses kick off the presidential nominating process. Romney also has been stumping hard in New Hampshire ahead of its Jan. 8 primary, including stops here and in two other communities on Sunday.

"The Monitor's editorial board is regarded as a liberal one on many issues, so it is not surprising that they would criticize Governor Romney for his conservative views and platform," said Romney spokesman Kevin Madden. "Governor Romney has taken firm positions that are at odds with the board's support for driver's licenses for illegal immigrants, their position against school choice and their advocacy for taking `Under God' out of the Pledge of Allegiance. The governor happens to disagree with the editorial board on all those issues."

In its endorsement, the Iowa newspaper said: "Romney combines an outsider's new face with a proven track record of success as an executive in both the private and public sectors. ...Personally, he is engaging, even charming, he has shown an ability to reach across partisan divides, and he is passionate on the campaign trail. In terms of leadership qualities, he possesses 'it,' and the importance of 'it' should not be diminished."

War Wagon wrote:Edwards comes across to me as slimy, disingenious, and disaffected. Not to be trusted.

That's my opinion of Huckabee. The guy is a charlatan. Toss in the fact that he believes that the Earth isn't more than a few thousand years old, doesn't grasp that he is, in fact, a primate, makes a public point of citing his Christian faith as a motivating factor in government decisions (e.g., handing out pardons), he has the strong support of inbred snake handlers who believe that everyone but their bass-ackward denomination is going to Hell...and well, the guy is everything I detest in a candidate. Like I said, there is literally NO way I could ever see for pulling a lever for this scumbag. He leaves a trail of slime wherever he goes.

Hillary said yesterday that if she is elected she will lower the price of gasoline. I will vote for her just so I can stick it to that money grubbing Goober and his punk ass gas station.

BSmack wrote:Those are your two choices Republicans. The rest have no chance of winning the nomination. Your choices are the Baptist snake oil salesman or the Mormon snake oil salesman.

Any one of the top 3 Dems will wipe the floor with either of those two clowns.

So which one is it Republicans?

Are you serious? Didn't you get the memo from mv? We're 11 months from the election and it's game over. The dems have already lost.

Gonna suck to be him on Election Day when Shillary is claiming .

FUN WITH NEW BOARD: :paul: :xxxl: :paul: :xxxl: :paul: :xxxl: :paul: :paul: :paul: :paul: :paul: :paul: :paul: :paul: :paul: :paul: :paul: :paul: :paul: :paul: :paul: :paul:

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:Like I said, there is literally NO way I could ever see for pulling a lever for this scumbag. He leaves a trail of slime wherever he goes.

It doesn't matter who you vote for here in NY. Not a one of the GOP candidates has a prayer of carrying New York. You might just as well vote for your Libertarian candidate for all the good it will do.

BSmack wrote:You might just as well vote for your Libertarian candidate for all the good it will do.

That's precisely what I plan to do (and have been doing for years).

It pisses off my GOP friends to no end, although I don't get why. They also got bent when I insisted on registering as Libertarian as soon as New York's illegal restrictions on third-party registration got nailed in court.

After the court decision, the local numbnuts at the county BoE did everything they could to not comply with my legal right to register as Libertarian - first, they claimed ignorance of the new rules, and then when I submitted the new NYS form (that included the Libertarian option), they conveniently "lost" it...THREE times. It was only after I marched back down there with a NYS elections dude on my cell phone ready to read them the riot act that they FINALLY complied.

Freaking New York. Fucked up politics for over 300 years.

War Wagon wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote: In practice, however, I worry about what happens if either Hillary or Obama is our nominee. Hillary evokes such a visceral negative reaction in the Republican base that I think it will bring out the Deliverance wing of the Republican Party in droves. Same thing for a black man in general. I don't think these people will be too thrilled about voting for either Huckabee or Romney. But they will be more than happy to vote against either Hillary or Obama.

maybe so, but I also tend to believe that if ever the time were ripe for either a woman or a black man to be elected President, that time would be now. And the fact that they're both running against each other at the same time sorta' cancels out that "visceral negative reaction" of which you speak, at least until after the nomination.

The "visceral reaction" of which I spoke was to Hillary in general, rather than to a woman in particular. And it applied primarily to the general election, rather than to the primary. Fwiw, I think a woman could win the Presidency at this point in history, just not this particular woman.

As for Obama, I fear that there is a group within our society that will tell pollsters one thing, but do another within the privacy of the voting booth. Not a majority, nor even necessarily a substantial minority. But a large enough group to make a difference in an otherwise close election, at least in theory.

And quite frankly, I'd take either over Edwards to actually win the general election. Edwards comes across to me as slimy, disingenious, and disaffected. Not to be trusted.

As one of Hillary's constituents, unlike you, I have to disagree with this. Hillary is trying feverishly to be all things to all people, and it is backfiring miserably.

Two other reasons why I would not consider voting for Hillary in the primary:

1. I abhor political dynasties. The fact that the Republican Party has chosen to become one does not mean that the Democratic Party should follow the same road. I don't think that a minimum of 24 consecutive years of the President being named either Bush or Clinton is in the country's best interests.

2. From the outset, Hillary has been playing the inevitability card. I, for one, don't take very kindly to being taken for granted by a person seeking elected office.

Let's also not forget that a drooling idiot like W should never have been elected.

Huh? You were doing just fine up until that point, Crappy.

Why shouldn't he have been elected, not once, but twice? Because you think he's a drooling idiot? Too bad it doesn't matter what you think about W, because he was indeed legally elected.

Yep, you and others of your ilk elected a drooling idiot/reformed (if you give him the benefit of the doubt, that is) coke fiend not once, but twice. Don't ever forget that. I know I won't. And props. I guess.

Anyone who misunderestimates the capacity of the American electorate for extreme stupidity...

Sheesh. You think that you yourself, one person, has more wisdom than that of the collective American electorate?

Well shit, let's just amend the Constitution to where one TiC get's to decide who the next President should be.

So, I don't have the right to criticize the decision of the public in general? I'm quite sure you never once criticized the collective American electorate's decision to elect Clinton.

Terry in Crapchester wrote: Yep, you and others of your ilk elected a drooling idiot/reformed (if you give him the benefit of the doubt, that is) coke fiend not once, but twice. Don't ever forget that. I know I won't. And props. I guess.

Don't ever forget that he used coke? Whatever...

I'm satisfied with my choice. I still think he's a decent, honorable man and speaking as a former member, I'm quite proud to have him as CiC of the Armed Forces. Can't say that about the former occupant, whom the military absolutely despised.

Btw, I've never seen him drool and the surge is working.

So, I don't have the right to criticize the decision of the public in general?

Sure you can, free speech and all that. But when you and your "ilk" repeatedly go to the kneejerk "drooling idiot" card, it gets tiresome.

I'm quite sure you never once criticized the collective American electorate's decision to elect Clinton.

I was very disappointed when Dole got routed as badly as he did in 1996. I didn't respect Clinton, but I most certainly respected the process that put him in office.

I was humbled actually and said to myself, self, The American People have spoken, better to just accept their decision. Perhaps they know better than you.

As much as I bashed Clitnon, I never once presumed to think the electorate was "extremely stupid" or that he "shouldn't have been elected".

I live with the way it is, not with the way I wish it was.

War Wagon wrote:As much as I bashed Clitnon, I never once presumed to think the electorate was "extremely stupid" or that he "shouldn't have been elected".

Got to love the old "I bashed Clinton every which way I could but at least I wasn't as bad as you have been with MY guy" defense.

Might have a new entry to the "tardliset post of the day" contest --

War Wagon wrote:I still think he's a decent, honorable man

You DO realize he's been caught in lie after lie after lie after lie after lie after lie after lie after lie after lie...


Right?

THAT meets your definition of "honorable"?

Explains a lot about you, actually... you're fucking stupid.

Dinsdale wrote:

You DO realize he's been caught in lie after lie after lie after lie after lie after lie after lie after lie after lie...


Right?

That narrows down the list of usualm suspects down to... thousands

Dinsdale wrote: You DO realize he's been caught in lie after lie after lie after lie after lie after lie after lie after lie after lie...

No, I don't.

Care to elaborate and provide proof, or does just calling someone a liar suffice in the debate class you failed?

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:

BSmack wrote:You might just as well vote for your Libertarian candidate for all the good it will do.

That's precisely what I plan to do (and have been doing for years).

It pisses off my GOP friends to no end, although I don't get why. They also got bent when I insisted on registering as Libertarian as soon as New York's illegal restrictions on third-party registration got nailed in court.

After the court decision, the local numbnuts at the county BoE did everything they could to not comply with my legal right to register as Libertarian - first, they claimed ignorance of the new rules, and then when I submitted the new NYS form (that included the Libertarian option), they conveniently "lost" it...THREE times. It was only after I marched back down there with a NYS elections dude on my cell phone ready to read them the riot act that they FINALLY complied.

Freaking New York. Fucked up politics for over 300 years.

Excellent. We've got years, perhaps decades, in which to drag our feet.

Sin,

Oklahoma.

As a registered Independent, I can't vote in the primaries, and third-party candidates? ... bwah.

Same shit in Kansas. One has three choices -- GOP, Dem or Ind.

Wonderful system, we have.

Btw, MtLR, how you feel about Huckabee, I feel about Shillary. ~ shudder ~

BSmack wrote:

War Wagon wrote:As much as I bashed Clitnon, I never once presumed to think the electorate was "extremely stupid" or that he "shouldn't have been elected".

Got to love the old "I bashed Clinton every which way I could but at least I wasn't as bad as you have been with MY guy" defense.

Fwiw, I wish Bush a happy and healthy retirement. Hell, I'll probably even pitch in to send him a bottle of Jim Beam and a bag of pretzels to help celebrate. I only wish the retirement had come four years earlier than it will, mainly for the sake of the Americans who have died in that godforsaken shithole known as Iraq since January 2005, and their families.

I'm sure that's a much better fate than Whitey ever wished for Clinton.

War Wagon wrote: No, I don't.

Care to elaborate and provide proof

How many would you like?

A few dozen?

Should I start with basic core-lies, or get into the detailed stuff?

How about a mixed bag?



"I'm a uniter, not a divider."

There's not a president in my lifetime that started playing partisan politics when his party lost control of Congress... not even close. And how does the country feel about Iraq? How about "dividing" us from our Inalienable Rights?


"Small government."

Yeah, he pimped his love for "small government" by ushering in the New Age of Big Government. Educate yourself, tard -- government has grown more under Bush than any other president(dollars-wise). The reckless abandon with which he's trashed states' rights is not only unprecedented -- it's criminal (as in "in contrast to what's written in the Constitution).


"Mission accomplished!"


Uhm... yeah. Just ask those 3000 dead Americans.


"Let me just say something about leaks in Washington. There are too many leaks of classified information in Washington. There's leaks at the executive branch; there's leaks in the legislative branch. There's just too many leaks. And if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of."


OK... maybe not a "lie," per se... I guess that depends on your definition of "taken care of." Scooter got "taken care of," alright. Oh, and BTW -- Bush was complicit in the leaks... tell me you knew?


Then of course, we can get into the stupid stuff --

After standing on the stage, after the debates, I made it very plain, we will not have an all-volunteer army. And yet, this week — we will have an all-volunteer army!"


Hard to tell the truth when you don't know the difference between your ass and a hole in the ground.


"We need an energy bill that encourages consumption."





But don't lose faith -- he occasionally tells the truth, too --

"It's very important for folks to understand that when there's more trade, there's more commerce."

I'm guessing Traitor said this for the benefit of KC residents.


"You know, one of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror."


Yeah, we know.


"The war on terror involves Saddam Hussein because of the nature of Saddam Hussein, the history of Saddam Hussein, and his willingness to terrorize himself."


"Free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don't attack each other. Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction."



Uhm... KYOA, anyone?



"Natural gas is hemispheric. I like to call it hemispheric in nature because it is a product that we can find in our neighborhoods."

mvscal wrote:Scooter wasn't the leak, dipshit. Dick Armitage was.

Scooter is a convicted felon. Deal with it.

mvscal wrote:Like I give a fuck.

He wasn't the leak, you fucking bedwettter. I suggest you start dealing with that.
While you're at it, you might want to start formulating an intelligible response as to why you aren't howling for Armitage's hide.

Oh yeah, that's right. He can't be linked to Rove or Cheney. Hypocritical and stupid. Quite a combo you've got going on.

Care to link me up with a time when I argued against prosecuting Armitage?

I won't hold my breath.

Armitage leaked it, Rove confirmed it (Libby lied about it).


How has Rove been "dealt with"?

He hasn't -- ergo, Bush busted in yet another lie... one of many.

Dinsdale wrote:Armitage leaked it, Rove confirmed it (Libby lied about it).

The prosecutor was appointed to find the leaker, not the confirmer. Libby lied when he didn't need to & Chimpy let him twist in the wind. Clinton (either of them) would have shown more loyalty to a faithful servant.

Martyred wrote:Never underestimate your country's ability to shit the bed just at the right moment.

Leave Bubba out of this.

The fact is that either of the above will handle the Party of Pelosi quite easily.

Diogenes wrote: The fact is that either of the above will handle the Party of Pelosi quite easily.[/b]

No doubt. I cant see Huckabee or Romney outdoing Pelosi in her fealty to AIPAC and Zionism.

Go GOP!

Make no mistake, Hillary is installed. (veep?.............)

Having actually dared to breath the truth--and base his whole candidacy upon it--Edwards is about to receive the BIGGEST pile-on in the palsied history of America's "democracy."

Obama will be Hillary's first (and rather quick) pick to the Supreme Court (but you knew that).


Now this is the basic plan. Like others, I do not discount the possibility of some collective hair-ball hacking rejection of Hillary. And thus....?


And so the conclusion of the "homo sapiens"....

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Make no mistake, Hillary is installed. (veep?.............)

Still playing the Terry McAuliffe/James Carville "inevitability" card, eh, Nicky? It's inevitable that Hillary will be the nominee, so you might as well get with the program.

Having actually dared to breath the truth--and base his whole candidacy upon it--Edwards is about to receive the BIGGEST pile-on in the palsied history of America's "democracy."

Agree with you in part. Edwards speaks the truth. The optimist in me hopes he will be rewarded for it. The pessimist in me fears that he'll be punished.

Obama will be Hillary's first (and rather quick) pick to the Supreme Court (but you knew that).

I think you might have this one backward.

I think Hillary might be a good fit for the Supreme Court. Certainly, the Supreme Court is a better fit for her particular talents than is the Presidency. The problem here is that talking about this presents an extremely thin line.

If Edwards or Obama were to promise to put Hillary on the Supreme Court if elected, that would be a good maneuver for the primary season. It would show respect for Hillary and for what she brings to the table, but at the same time cause many Democratic voters to think seriously about whether she's the best candidate for President.

The problem is that if either of them were to utter that, they'd be crucified with that comment in the general election. The Republican base is likely to sit this one out in substantial part, but they're complete hatred of Hillary is one of the few things that could change that. Give them a chance to run against Hillary -- either as President or as a Supreme Court Justice -- and the Republicans will be able to turn out their base.

As a long time McCain backer, I'd like to believe he has a chance - Funny but 8 years ago he was "white" obama before Rove et al; managed to trash him out.

No one is mentioning Rudy, which is exactly what I think he wants. He's putting his resources in FL - where his penchant for cross dressing will play much better. He'd be my # 2 choice *shudder*

I'll stay home if Mit the Waffel or Fuckabee get the nomination.

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:

BSmack wrote:You might just as well vote for your Libertarian candidate for all the good it will do.

That's precisely what I plan to do (and have been doing for years).

It pisses off my GOP friends to no end, although I don't get why. They also got bent when I insisted on registering as Libertarian as soon as New York's illegal restrictions on third-party registration got nailed in court.

After the court decision, the local numbnuts at the county BoE did everything they could to not comply with my legal right to register as Libertarian - first, they claimed ignorance of the new rules, and then when I submitted the new NYS form (that included the Libertarian option), they conveniently "lost" it...THREE times. It was only after I marched back down there with a NYS elections dude on my cell phone ready to read them the riot act that they FINALLY complied.

Freaking New York. Fucked up politics for over 300 years.

Isn't their convention in room #43 of the Newark Holiday Inn this year? Have fun. I hear it's a double.

Freaking melting...

ABC News' Matt Stuart Reports: Things became tense between Mitt Romney and a reporter Thursday in Columbia, South Carolina over the former governor's assertion that lobbyists aren't running his campaign.

During a media availability, Romney told reporters Washington needs a leader who "will fight to make sure we resolve the issues rather than continuously look for partisan opportunities for score settling and for opportunities to link closer to lobbyists," he said. "I don't have lobbyists running my campaign."

An Associated Press reporter following Romney's campaign challenged his claim.

"That's not true governor," said Glen Johnson, a reporter with the AP. "That is not true. Ron Kaufman's a lobbyist. How can you say that you don't have lobbyists?"

Johnson was referring to Kaufman, a senior advisor to Romney, who has traveled extensively on the campaign.

Then, a heated exchange ensued between Romney and the reporter:

Romney: "Did you hear what I said? Did you hear what I said Glen?"

Johnson: "That you don't have lobbyists running your campaign."

Romney: "I said I don't have lobbyists running my campaign and he's not running my campaign."

Johnson: "He's one of your senior advisors."

Romney began to argue that his campaign manager is Beth Myers, not Ron Kaufman.

Romney: "Beth Myers has been on the plane with me and Beth Myers is running my campaign."

Johnson: "So Ron is just window dressing? He's just a potted plant on your plane?"

Romney: "Ron is a wonderful friend. An advisor, he's not paid as an advisor like many others. But I do not have lobbyists running my campaign. I appreciate that you think that's funny but Ron Kaufman has not been any in on any of the senior strategy meetings of our campaign."

Johnson pressed Romney about whether Kaufman had ever been in a debate strategy session.

Romney: "At any time, has he ever been in a debate session? Sure. Is that a senior strategy meeting?"

Romney suggested the reporter was out of line and the reporter suggested Romney wasn't being truthful.

"Don't be argumentative with the candidate," Romney campaign spokesperson Eric Fehrnstrom told the reporter.

Underlying the exchange is tension between Romney and some of the reporters covering his campaign, who have accused him of a "candor gap."

"I don't have any lobbyists, except for the lobbyists I have."


So, see if I have this right -- a lobbyist is working on his campaign for free.


Nice campaign, cultist.


I'm sure there would be no "favors" for the lobbyist if elected.


What a POS this guy is.


And since most of you are tards and can't follow basic stuff...

Blackwater, the rogue mercenaries being investigated by Congress for possible wrongdoings in Iraq is DEEP in this guy's pockets.


All political candidates are dirty -- but this one is particularly dirty. And a proven liar.

And of course, there's always...

Mitt Romney acknowledged yesterday that he never saw his father march with Martin Luther King Jr. as he asserted in a nationally televised speech this month, and historical evidence shows that Michigan's Governor George Romney and the civil rights leader never did march together.


"If you look at the literature, if you look at the dictionary, the term 'saw' includes being aware of in the sense I've described," Romney told reporters in Iowa. "It's a figure of speech and very familiar, and it's very common. And I saw my dad march with Martin Luther King. I did not see it with my own eyes, but I saw him in the sense of being aware of his participation in that great effort."

Yes, you did read that right -- if you question this man's word, it only means that you don't know what the word "saw" means.


Not just a confirmed flagrant liar, but not even a very good one.


Fucking Mormon piece of shit.

Can't give Romormon all the love, though...

Edwards is a fucking confirmed liar, as well (:SHOCKER: for a lawyer, I know)

Two recent ads by the Edwards campaign are quick and to the point, but they miss the mark. One claims that Edwards is the "only" Democrat who "beats" the leading Republican contenders in "the recent" CNN poll. Actually, Edwards wasn't even included in the most recent CNN poll; the ad is referring to an older one. More recent polling has found that both Obama and Clinton are leading all of the Republican front-runners.

The other ad says that Edwards is the "only" Democrat running who opposed NAFTA and other trade deals. Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio would take issue with that.

Not his only bald-faced lie, just his most recent. But hey, at least he's "John Edwards, and" he "approves of this message."


Puts his endorsement on a lie... nice. POS Lawyer.

Mitt Romney wrote:In my years as governor, we kept adding jobs every single month

Any questions?

Can't leave the Dems out, either...

Hillary Clinton, to Obama wrote:Clinton: You've changed positions within three years on, you know, a range of issues that you put forth when you ran for the Senate and now you have changed. You know, you said you would vote against the Patriot Act; you came to the Senate, you voted for it. You said that you would vote against funding for the Iraq war; you came to the Senate and you voted for $300 billion of it.

Hillary's accusations against Obama are indeed correct. He certainly flip-flopped once he got his cushy job, and indeed voted to renew the Patriot Act when he was on record as opposing it.


Catch is... Hillary did the exact same thing.

And while I'm C&Ping from Factcheck.org, best not leave Rudy the Liar out...

Factckeck.org wrote:Giuliani: Bill Clinton cut the military drastically. It's called the peace dividend, one of those nice-sounding phrases, very devastating. It was a 25, 30 percent cut in the military. President Bush has never made up for that. We – our Army had been at 725,000; it's down to 500,000.

Actually, most of the cutting to which Giuliani refers occurred during the administration of George H.W. Bush. At the end of fiscal year 1993 (which was Bush’s last one in office), the Army had 572,423 active-duty soldiers – a far cry from 725,000. In fact, to get to that number, one has to go back to 1990, during the first gulf war. Moreover, Clinton’s cuts in the military, while large, were nowhere close to 25 percent to 30 percent. Between 1993 and 2001, the Army went from 572,423 to 480,801, which is a decline of 16 percent. The entire military went from 1,705,103 to 1,385,116, a decrease of 18.8 percent.

Compare that with the far larger cuts made during the first Bush administration: In 1989, the military stood at 2,130,229 and the Army had 769,741 soldiers. By 1993, those numbers had declined by 19.9 percent and 25.6 percent, respectively.

And as we’ve pointed out before, it was the first Bush administration – specifically then-Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney – that began bragging openly of the peace dividend.

Dinsdale wrote:

The other ad says that Edwards is the "only" Democrat running who opposed NAFTA and other trade deals. Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio would take issue with that.

Not his only bald-faced lie, just his most recent. But hey, at least he's "John Edwards, and" he "approves of this message."


Puts his endorsement on a lie... nice. POS Lawyer.

Can't necessarily call Edwards a liar on this one. Perhaps he didn't notice that Kucinich was still in the race.

If that's the case, he wouldn't be the only one. :wink: