Didn't seem that jaw-dropping - he liked the conservative ones and disliked the non-conservative ones. Since we currently have no liberal judges on the scotus, they were not a factor.

McBullshit is just pandering to the right wing base once again.

If he disliked them, then why did he vote for them?

My question exactly. Maybe you give him a pass on Souter, who was a Republican president's nominee, but he voted "yes" on Breyer and Ginsburg after Clinton nominated them. How can he possibly get props for saying now he wouldn't have nominated them? It's phony as hell.

f he disliked them, then why did he vote for them?

Posted by dylanfan

Because he runs the McBullshit-"Straighttalk" Express.

McFlip-McFlop.......

Mainly-he's a WHORE!

Somebody could ask him. McCain is getting away with so many things and not being questioned - he gets such a pass from the media.

"he voted "yes" on Breyer and Ginsburg after Clinton nominated them."

Somewhat off-topic, but being a Republican doesn't require you to vote against everyone appointed by the other party. It's that kind of politics that results in nothing ever getting done in our Congress.

However, in McCain's case, it's clear to most people that he is only a conservative when he feels like being one, and he probably agreed with the wishy-washy liberal politics of Ginsburg at the time he voted for her.

Because he was asked which ones he wouldn't have nominated. I think he sees a big difference betweeen the role of the president and an individual senator when it comes to picking or approving the judges.

Voting "aye" is not the same as nominating someone. Just cause you don't have enough reason to vote down someone does not in any way mean you are a big fan. Furthermore, i would have thought this would be seen as a plus for him as it was not the typical partisan politics voting for someone who does not fit into your little box. Then you have the 20/20 hindsight thing, i don't know what his thoughts are now as opposed to before. Either way this is not an issue.

Does that mean every Democratic Senator who voted for Thomas would have also nominated him if given the chance, of course not. Presidents nominate, senators advice and consent. This role has been a sticking point between republicans and liberal democrats for some time.

salamandagator,

Solid point. Completely agree with you on this one.

Somebody could ask him. McCain is getting away with so many things and not being questioned - he gets such a pass from the media.

Posted by sitdown at 2008-08-18 03:57 PM

I would love to know why the medai doesn't press Obama's refusal to name three people he admires. One would think it would be Ghandi, or Lincoln, Kennedy, Jesse Jackson... Seeing as he has their pictures in his Senate office.

Voting "aye" is not the same as nominating someone. Just cause you don't have enough reason to vote down someone does not in any way mean you are a big fan. Furthermore, i would have thought this would be seen as a plus for him as it was not the typical partisan politics voting for someone who does not fit into your little box. Then you have the 20/20 hindsight thing, i don't know what his thoughts arnow as opposed to before. Either way this is not an issue.

Posted by salamandagator at 2008-08-18 04:02 P M

Kind of makes this comment look a bit desperate.

McCain's answer may be the most glaring flip-flop of the general election campaign. He voted yes on most of the Supreme Court's liberal wing, yet he just said -- in a purpose-driven house of God, no less -- he wouldn't have nominated them.

"I would love to know why the medai doesn't press Obama's refusal to name three people he admires."

When did he do that?

Oh come on, if he voted for them for a lifetime position then he can't now claim to have opposed them. That is pure bull shit. He didn't consider that anyone might actually check how he voted and he thought his answer would score points with conservatives. His ambition trumps his ethics every time it seems.

When did he do that?

Posted by SanAntonioRogue at 2008-08-18 04:09 P

That's the point. He didn't. Just like he couldn't answer the simple question when life begins. You know it is above his pay grade.

Try to come out of the booze haze, Crispee.

You said, "I would love to know why the medai doesn't press Obama's refusal to name three people he admires."

And I asked, "When did he do that?" (Refuse to name people he admires)

The you said, "That's the point. He didn't."

What, exactly, are you talking about?

McCain 2008 BC!

Try to come out of the booze haze, Crispee

What, exactly, are you talking about?

Posted by SanAntonioRogue at 2008-08-18 04:16

Apparently you never bothered to watch your hero perform. Or you are just being obtuse and partisan. He was asked to name three people he admired the most and who would he seek advice from? He never bothered to name anyone he admires and decided to answer the second part of the question. Maybe you should watch the forum before calling someone drunk.

...the simple question when life begins. - crispee

If you think this is a simple question, question your own sense of simplicity.

(Or tell me the answer if you absolutely have to then I can question IT).

What really pisses me off the e-mail I just got ffrom the supposedly Libertarian campaing of Bob Barr. These unLibertarian iditots actually SUED in FEDERAL COURT to try to get into this PRIVATE event.

I am so glad Bob Barr is excluded from this even and that he will be excluded from the Debates. If people listen to Bob Barr they may get a negative and misleading idea of what a Libertarian actually is.

If you think this is a simple question, question your own sense of simplicity.

(Or tell me the answer if you absolutely have to then I can question IT).

Posted by sitdown at 2008-08-18 04:21 PM |

My opinion or possibly the next POTUS answer? Which is more important to you? The question was in his own opinion. At birth? At conception? After the first trimester...? Shouldn't he have the obligation to express his view? Wouldn't his votes as a State and US Senator reflect his opinion? Instead of his bullshit, gutless answer of being above his paygrade?

"Apparently you never bothered to watch your hero perform. Or you are just being obtuse and partisan. He was asked to name three people he admired the most and who would he seek advice from?"

Incorrect Crispee. He was asked who the 3 wisest people he knew were, and who would he rely on in his administration. Here is the transcript of the question.

"THE FIRST ISSUE IS THE AREA OF LISTENING. THERE IS A VERSUS IN PROVERBS THAT SAYS FOOLS THINK THEY NEED NO ADVICE BUT WISE LISTEN TO OTHER PEOPLE. WHO ARE THE THREE WISEST PEOPLE YOU KNOW IN YOUR LIFE AND WHO ARE YOU GOING TO RELY ON HEAVILY IN YOUR ADMINISTRATION?"

Obama answered that his wife and his grandmother were 2 of the wisest people he knew, and then went on to name Dick Lugar, Ted Kennedy, and Tom Coburn as being good people to listen to for his administration.

Voting "aye" is not the same as nominating someone.

Uh huh, sure it's not.

It is clean and simple, if they were good enough to be approved why wouldn't they be good enough to be nominated?

I often buy cars that I would never consider buying. Do it all the time.

When I just bought a brand new Mercedes and I never ever put them on a list of cars to buy.

I think this is apples and oranges.

He was asked about justices he would have not nominated if was President.

That is different that justices he confirmed as Senator.

Would you ever vote to confirm a nominee that you would never have nominated yourself?

"Would you ever vote to confirm a nominee that you would never have nominated yourself?"

It is the difference between satisfactory and excellence.

I agree with Rogers...it needed a follow up question.

"It is the difference between satisfactory and excellence."

Would you settle for a satisfactory judge if you were a Senator?

Would you ever vote to confirm a nominee that you would never have nominated yourself?

Posted by JOE at 2008-08-18 04:29 PM

Absolutely---If the person solely charged with nominating the Judges doesn't share my ideological underpinnings, that doesn't mean that I would reject anyone that person nominated out of hand, especially if there is a chance that the next person nominated could be far worse then the present nominee.

DANNI,

Okay, lets assume that McCain doesn't see a role/responsibly difference between the President and an individual Senator. Maybe the 3 judges that he wouldn't nominate now just didn't turn out the way he thought they would.

Or...I wouldn't nominate that person myself but I'm not opposed to their nomination.

The real flip flop would have been if the question was "which Supreme Court Justices should not be there?"

"I often buy cars that I would never consider buying. Do it all the time."

My first choice would never be a front wheel drive car but my wife wanted one i would buy it for her because the choice was not mine. My input would end at safety and maintenance.
Get it?

"Would you settle for a satisfactory judge if you were a Senator?"

Would you settle for a budwiser if you were parched?

"Would you ever vote to confirm a nominee that you would never have nominated yourself?"

Thank God this doesn't actually happen or we would not have a supreme court. Almost every senator would nominate a different judge if given the chance.

From July 19...

In delivering a recent commencement address at Wake Forest University, McCain defended his 1993 and 1994 votes for the two liberal justices "for the simple reason that the nominees were qualified, and it would have been petty and partisan and disingenuous to insist otherwise."

"Under our Constitution, it is the president's call to make," McCain said. "It is part of the discipline of democracy to respect the roles and responsibilities of each branch of government and, above all, to respect the verdicts of elections and judgment of the people."

My opinion or possibly the next POTUS answer? Which is more important to you? -

crispee that is not my point. YOU said it was "a simple question"

"Just like he couldn't answer the simple question when life begins"

How is that a "simple question"? That's my question.

"Would you settle for a budwiser if you were parched?"

Great response. Deciding on a beer is certainly on par with choosing a Supreme Court Justice.

I think McCain is spot on this one. Clinton nominated them. He didn't like their political leanings but they were qualified so he confirmed them based on their qualifications and not political leanings.

"If he disliked them, then why did he vote for them?"

Ya think it might be their track record after they were voted in?

If this is his biggest flip flop, I'll take it.

The only jaw dropping thing about this is that McCain put party second in his confirmations of Clinton's nominations.

My opinion or possibly the next POTUS answer? Which is more important to you? -

crispee that is not my point. YOU said it was "a simple question"

"Just like he couldn't answer the simple question when life begins"

How is that a "simple question"? That's my question.

Posted by sitdown at 2008-08-18 04:47 PM

Are you really saying he didn't need to answer or has never been asked that as a politician? How can he make any votes relating to abortion if he doesn't know one of the basic factors? When life begins? Nothing about scientific terms. Just in his own opinion which was the question. How simple for a politician with the words "In your opinion"

Sitdown,
McCain had no problem answering that question. Why is it above Obama's pay grade?

Media will continue to lob easy fat ones at McC until the old geezer implodes on camera. Then the fast balls and wicked curves will whistle in from all directions. I can hardly wait. herm

If this is his biggest flip flop, I'll take it.

Posted by KBM

I guess the Left is only giving out free passes to guys named Powell in August.

"Great response. Deciding on a beer is certainly on par with choosing a Supreme Court Justice."

More thought goes into my deciding on a beer then some people indulge in before pretending to be upset by this.

McCain was there to firm up the evangelicals. What else was he going to say? As long as he sees things their way now none of them care that he voted the other way at the time and he didn't disappoint them when he said that a woman has no right to choose what happens to her body. That's a dealbreaker with them and you won't get elected as a Republican without solid evangelical support. Doesn't matter how useless and bad McCain might be in all other ways as long as he's solid on abortion he'll get their vote. We have the useless and worthless Bush as proof of that.

I didn't last the 30 minutes that Rogers did with McCain regurgitating his stump speeches and talking points, about 10 minutes was all I could take. I wouldn't have watched Obama's either if he'd done the same thing but he didn't. His answer to the question was that he would never have nominated Thomas because he wasn't up to the job which everybody knows and he wouldn't have nominated Scalia who was but with whom he had too profound differences. On abortion Obama said he was pro-choice so very few in that audience, if any, will vote for him.

Rogers,

The area of presidential prerogative is where a conservative and a liberal have very divergent views - and why you think that his vote to confirm is a flip / flop. It is not.

A conservative believes that (based on the Constitution) it is the President that has the authority to nominate - and the Senate to "advise and consent". This is taken by conservatives at face value. The president should get who he nominates. So a conservative will vote to support the nominee even if they differ from what the Senator believes is right for the country.

This HISTORICALLY was always the case until the Bork decision (only 11 times in over 200 years was a Justice turned away prior. And the current questioning process has only been implemented since 1955. Others were turned away prior with no questioning)

Liberals believe that they should only vote to confirm someone on the court that believes as they do. The result has been a migration to the left on the court as the liberals got who they wanted without much issue and the conservatives had to fight to get who they wanted - and sometimes didn't.

This is changing with the conservatives having seen the impact that "legislating from the Bench" can have on the social fabric of the US.

So McCain wasn't flip flopping...he wouldn't have nominated them...but he voted for them as that was how the process was supposed to work with the establishment of the Constitution

Just caught a little of Warren laughing at the story McCain was listening or heard Obama answers. He also mentioned how each candidate knew what subjects he would be covering. I think Obama actually said he looked into that. He insisted he would have loved to ask follw up questions. As it happens with politicians, their answers run long and he made the decision to move on.

McCain was there to firm up the evangelicals. What else was he going to say?

Firm up evangelicals in Orange County, Ca? Maybe he speaks by his convictions. Instead of pandering to every side ala Obama.

"So a conservative will vote to support the nominee even if they differ from what the Senator believes is right for the country.

"This HISTORICALLY was always the case until the Bork decision (only 11 times in over 200 years was a Justice turned away prior. And the current questioning process has only been implemented since 1955. Others were turned away prior with no questioning) "

Whoops: HISTORICALLY speaking Republicans used the filibuster in 1968 to block President Johnson's nominee Abe Fortus for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

So much for someone's HISTORICALLY-challenged view of what "conservatives" believe.

I thought Obama's response to this question was a lot more jaw dropping?

He answered Clarence Thomas because he was not experienced enough.

Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black?

Now that's racism!

Hello, Crispee. Other evangelicals were watching apart from those in OC. He may well be speaking from conviction but if his conviction was the other way he couldn't be speaking it and get elected as a republican president.

Interesting that you think that Obama panders. Like any good president who has to work with other people and points of view would have Obama gives me the impression of possessing a necessary flexibility. But then I think that the inflexible Bush actually did pander to the homophobes and Christians divisively and negatively and I'm sure you would disagree.

Interesting that you think that Obama panders. Like any good president who has to work with other people and points of view would have Obama gives me the impression of possessing a necessary flexibility. But then I think that the inflexible Bush actually did pander to the homophobes and Christians divisively and negatively and I'm sure you would disagree

I would agree you posted another ridiculous pro Obama and anti Bush crap. How one has anything to do with the other is beyond me. But then again I am not a blind follower of The Boy Wonder. You call it flexibility I call it good old fashion pandering.

The media were hoping that they wouldn't have to say much about the faith forum, during which Obama looked and sounded awful. The idea of this bloviating windbag in my living room for the next four years is terrifying. Bill Clinton ruminated on the meaning of the word "is", Barack Obama can't even handle a softball question on "evil". Godalmighty.

That said, I fail to see how voting to confirm a SCOTUS, while saying that he wouldn't have sent that person up to be nominated, is contradictory. It's only recently that the Senate has so politicized the president's Supreme Court picks. In this era, it started with Robert Bork.

Suits me, though. Over the course of the Obama presidency, let every single Republican vote "NO" on every single Obama nomination for every single cabinet post, judge, ambassador, military officer--that they themselves wouldn't have nominated. And let me know how that works out.

After all, I love gridlock in Washington. I wish McCain would have given us a lot more of it during his half lifetime there.

Since we currently have no liberal judges on the scotus, they were not a factor.

Posted by Lipzoidial at 2008-08-18 03:46 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

what?????

no libs on the court......please...........

A conservative believes that (based on the Constitution) it is the President that has the authority to nominate - and the Senate to "advise and consent". This is taken by conservatives at face value. The president should get who he nominates. So a conservative will vote to support the nominee even if they differ from what the Senator believes is right for the country.

Interesting take on what advise and consent means and what a Senator's duty to our country means for some conservatives. I've known a few conservatives quite well and they didn't seem to me to be people who would think that way.

Advice if summarily dismissed is probably going to have a negative effect on future consent but I guess thinking that way acknowledges reality and lacks the moral clarity so beloved of many recent conservatives. Many of whom thankfully have moved on to other endeavors either by their own choice or that of the electors. Bush and Cheney will soon be joining them, mere thanks somehow doesn't seem adequate in their case. Even atheists can shout Hallelujah when that happy day arrives.

I guess since the Right has made so many mistakes and blunders over the past 8 years they need to turn our attention to abortion and gay rights. Take your eye off the issues affecting out nation daily so we can get 4 more years of Bush politics. Great. WAKE UP AMERICA!!!

Hey Everyone, it is about the economy and ending wars. If that happens we can spend the $10 Billion per month on our soil in the form of bridges, roads, electric infrastucture and renewable energy.

Well, IndyDave, can I assume you won't be voting for Obama? After all, he's not going to be ending the war either.

Let me know. I'm looking for a 3rd party guy too.

sure indy.........defeat in iraq and then take that money and build roads and feed the poor and all that stuff.........do you REALLY believe thats gonna happen?

It seems only WE can EVER change our minds after seeing a situation for a period of time, and wanting to change it, is this correct? For everyone else, it's a flip-flop, right? Judges are supposed to interpret existing laws, not create new ones, leaving the design functions up to Congress AND the President

If ONE Judge was to interpret the Constitution, and determine Roe v Wade was NOT a LEGAL interpretation of Federal law or settled law, you'd jump up and down CUSSIN your proverbial Asses off. Why depend on the Courts to dictate policy, isn't that Congresses JOB?

Those laws should be left to the states, and SHOULD be a States rights position, along with Minimum wage, the Marriage laws (between man/woman and/or gay partners), if it can't be handled there, then move it into the Federal courts, this IS the way things were originally established for this Republic!

There is a time, when the President NEEDS to stop searching for other points of view, AND make a decision, right or wrong. The question, for me after the Saddleback interviews, is whether Obama actually can stop the one for the other! I AM doubtful!

But then again I am not a blind follower of The Boy Wonder.

No, but you certainly are of The Boy Blunder.

Admit it, you were nervous when McCain starting his war drum beating regarding Russia/Georgia. We do not need any more wars. When will our nation's leaders understand? Why don't they send their children to war...not just the other guy's child?

How many people would send their child to die in Iraq today? To think some people still don't understand the war is about OIL. Nothing more, nothing less. Oh...and to get Chaney's boys rich.

I am an American wanting to be proud of my coutry's decisions. Knowing how much work we have to do on our soil like fixing Education and Health Care, its tough to keep sending money over seas (on credit). Will we ever learn from other nations? Or will we continue to be eaten alive by corporations.

But then again I am not a blind follower of The Boy Wonder.

No, but you certainly are of The Boy Blunder.

Posted by BlueInBushland at 2008-08-18 06:26 PM

Wow did you think that up all by yourself? Or did you steal that from a classmate.

Admit it, you were nervous when McCain starting his war drum beating regarding Russia/Georgia. We do not need any more wars. When will our nation's leaders understand? Why don't they send their children to war...not just the other guy's child?

* * * *

Maybe you're unfamiliar with the McCain family's biography, and where his child--grown son, actually, like everyone else in uniform--happens to be.

Why don't you grab an ar-15 and get your butt on the front line? I know...you need to provide for your family so you can't.

Do you even know enough about Iraq to get into a debate? You must be very wealthy, since the economic damage to our county does not seem to affect you.

Bottom line is that our country needs serious money spent on its own soil, asap. Time for another Fair Deal and New Deal to put our country back in shape.

so that makes 2 Senators with a family member in the war? Wow.

Yeah RiR how dare you not feel the pain? Don't you know you are supposed to be miserable and disgusted with yourself and Country? You should be feeling angered and ashamed. You were used and lied to by this administration. Don't you have any feelings? Don't you know you are the cause of the pathetic education and healthcare system? You should be ashamed.

This question was a no brainer--and they expected it to be asked--the theme of SCOTUS judges.

Warren turned it slightly to ask which judge(s) they would not have nominated.

20-20 gives folks hindsight.

McCain would not have nominated the judges he named.

Obama named his judges.

Ginsberg passed like 94-6 or something really high.

The crux was what kind of judge would you nominate --they both answered.

Obama was critical of Thomas on experience--which is hilarious when Obama is running for POTUS--with no experience at all.

Obama's answer for "when do babies have rights" was probably the biggest blunder of the night.

Not being able to answer the question because it is above his paygrade!!! What a baffoon.

So laws where women are killed and so is their baby--those laws should be thrown out.

If the baby survives a botched abortion and Obama says let it die.

Obama doesn't know if his two daughters have rights as humans??

He has no core values of life--and he proclaims to stick up for the lest of these scripture!!

And the lest of us would be infants and the unborn--and he says kill them--if that is what the woman wants--kill them all. Even coming down the birth canal--even after being born and breathing!!! Kill them he says--so he believes..

What a friggin hypocrit...

darn bold and italics

"Wow did you think that up all by yourself? Or did you steal that from a classmate.

Posted by crispee_oc"

This from someone who was loudly proclaiming that Obama "refused" to answer a question during the forum, and then it turned out you didn't even know what question he was asked???

Dave,

The right is using the well tried and usually successful method of flooding the country with negative stories, images and opinions about Obama in the belief that enough people will be influenced enough by them to vote against Obama. They don't have much else to offer because all their candidates were so piss-poor one way or another that they ended up with McCain and positive votes are going to be hard to come by for him. Hello, 72-years old, health problems, a terrible campaigner and unstable!

I still believe that a sufficient number of Americans will still be motivated enough by the alternate joke and nightmare of the Bush/Cheney presidency to send the Republicans on that trip to the wilderness that they so richly deserve. Just not quite as much as I did a month or so back now I see the same old poison being used again and having its usual effect.

Yeah RiR how dare you not feel the pain? Don't you know you are supposed to be miserable and disgusted with yourself and Country? You should be feeling angered and ashamed. You were used and lied to by this administration. Don't you have any feelings? Don't you know you are the cause of the pathetic education and healthcare system? You should be ashamed

I rest my case. How do we make jokes about how our President has lied to us over and over. Let's not even think about the problems we created over the last 8 years so we can concentrate on the abortion/gay rights issue. This is just great.

You Right wing morons make it tough to stay independent.

What is wrong with making much needed improvements on our own soil? More people died from Bush's policy in Iraq than any amount of abortions. But the crazy religious sect in this country is at peace with 500,000+ Iraqi deaths because we are on a crusade against Evil. Republicans that stand blindly behind Bush...that is the definition of Evil ( or Stupid).

Why don't you grab an ar-15 and get your butt on the front line? I know...you need to provide for your family so you can't.

* * * *

The Army provided for me and my family for 9 great years. Had a training accident, spent ten months learning to walk again, and decided to get out.

BTW: the AR-15 is the civilian equivalent to the M-16 rifles, and its use is frowned upon while a member of the uniformed services. You do know, I hope, bring your own munitions anymore? This isn't the Crusades, eh?

I really did think that up all by myself, Crispee. It took about two seconds. All the time I thought necessary to devote to a reply to your nonsense.

More people died from Bush's policy in Iraq than any amount of abortions. But the crazy religious sect in this country is at peace with 500,000+ Iraqi deaths because we are on a crusade against Evil. Republicans that stand blindly behind Bush...that is the definition of Evil ( or Stupid).

Posted by IndependentDave
* * * *

Hmmm. Actually, the definition of stupid would be to think that 20 million is less than 500,000. Don't take my word for it though--ask someone who's in school. Like kindergarten.

And by the way, there haven't been 500,000 die in Iraq. Way too many, to be sure, but you're wrong by a magnitude of about 6.

"And by the way, there haven't been 500,000 die in Iraq. Way too many, to be sure, but you're wrong by a magnitude of about 6."

Oh. Well if you say so if must be true.

Right...Trying to sift through your post. I have never fired a weapon, so I don't claim to be a weapons expert. I am a living breathing American who knows when our leaders are full of CRAP. I feel sorry for the members of the military that were used by Bush and co. I feel even worse for the families who lost loved ones and for the young/old soldiers burdened with serious injuries. I have a family member in the Marines and he is preparing for a tour to Iraq.

How can I be informed politically and not be outraged over the last 8 years?

"which is hilarious when Obama is running for POTUS--with no experience at all."

Obama has more experience as a legislator than Thomas had as a judge.

This from someone who was loudly proclaiming that Obama "refused" to answer a question during the forum, and then it turned out you didn't even know what question he was asked???

I know exactly what the question was as well as the answer. I watched it live. If you think Obama named three people he admires you are a fool. Unless you think Nunn, Kennedy and Colburn were the most admired people in his life. If you heard McCain answer the question you wouldn't be trying to defend Obama.

Move on and troll elsewhere little man. You are in the minority on this subject.

those 12 people who support Bush in this country must be pretty busy bloggers, lol. Morons.

If 500,000 Iraqi deaths is to high, what is the real number? did you count the bodies yourself?

How about the 20,000 troops missing limbs etc, and the 4000+ dead soldiers. FYI, this does not count contractor deaths, and those guys outnumber the troops.

From 1974 to 1977, Thomas was an Assistant Attorney General of Missouri under then State Attorney General John Danforth. When Danforth was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1976 to 1979, Thomas left to become an attorney with Monsanto in St. Louis, Missouri. He returned to work for Danforth from 1979 to 1981 as a Legislative Assistant. Both men shared a common bond in that both had studied to be ordained (although Thomas was Roman Catholic and Danforth was ordained Episcopalian). Danforth was to be instrumental in championing Thomas for the Supreme Court.

You must have the reach of Michael Phelps.

Obama has more experience as a legislator than Thomas had as a judge.

Posted by Danforth at 2008-08-18 07:03 PM

Well the real number is between 75,000 and 100,000. But even were it 500k, it makes your comment about that being higher than "any number of abortions" seem pretty silly.

You don't sound like an indy to me--you're an Obama voter. Full of rage, very expressive, and ignorant of key facts. And he needs your vote. Frankly, he deserves it.

Me? I'm still looking for my candidate. Might even sit this one out.

Hey Right. Even if it were 100,000 our President chose to go to war. Sounds like 30X the people killed on 9/11. Think about how devasted we were as a nation that day. Then magnify it by 30.

Keep in mind our PRESIDENT chose to go to war.

By the way I am independent. I will not vote for McCain. If you sit out, then you let others decide for you. Is that smart?

We've been at war with Iraq since 1991. More Iraqis died during Clinton's embargoes and no-fly-zone enforcements that during the Bush Administration. I wonder how troubled you were about that.

Others have already decided who the next president will be. At least, they've got it down to two unpalatable choices. At this point, why play along? While I deeply respect McCain's military service to his country, the way he's lived his life leaves a great deal to be desired. Were he a Democrat, it would be enough to criticize him. But I'm supposed to pull the lever for him anyway, just because a plurality of Republicans in other states thought he was the best choice?

Nah. My participation won't be missed anyhow. And to acknowledge that fact is smart.

Anybody who says that there have been less than 100,000 deaths directly or indirectly attributable to Bush's decision to invade Iraq is a fool or a wilfully blind partisan or both.

Extrapolating from our own known military losses, how many Iraqi military and police have been killed, how many insurgents? How many civilians have died from collateral damage? How many more have died because of destroyed infrastructure, hospitals, water and sewage systems? Nobody can know what the real figure is but respectable institutions using well-tried and proven methods to estimate it said it was well in excess of 500,000 two or three years ago.

Less than the number of unborn children because of legal abortions they go on to argue as if the two had anything to do with each other.

A lot of them want to pack the Supreme Court with Scalias so they can join Chile, El Salvador and Nicaragua in making all abortion for any reason whatsoever illegal and if the woman dies, well too bad. McCain's their boy all right just as Bush was. I prefer our present laws which leaves it up to the woman. I don't want politicians like George Bush or lunatic preachers like Pat Robertson telling my wife what to do with her body and I know she doesn't.

"If you think Obama named three people he admires you are a fool. Unless you think Nunn, Kennedy and Colburn were the most admired people in his life. If you heard McCain answer the question you wouldn't be trying to defend Obama.

Posted by crispee_oc"

Are you a complete idiot? Obama was NOT asked to name 3 people he admires. I posted the transcript of the question at 4:27. He was asked to name the WISEST people he knows, and then asked who he might rely on in his administration.

Get it? Nobody asked him who he admired. You've been screaming that he refused to answer the question and why he wasn't held accountable, but YOU got the question wrong.

Geez, be a man and admit you screwed it up.

More Iraqis died during Clinton's embargoes and no-fly-zone enforcements that during the Bush Administration.

Is it really possible to live in America, or anywhere else for that matter, and believe this? I have no difficulty with the concept of people like RisR saying it. But actually believing it? RisR is the only one who can answer that. How about it, RisR?

Geez, be a man and admit you screwed it up.

That'll be the day.

As to Warren and follow up questions--he said afterwards it was really hard not to.

He gets kudos for letting the candidates talk.

He did not interrupt them (ie Matthews and others).

I thought Warren did a good job and wasn't looking for a gotcha moment like those clowns in our "news" media and I applaud both McCain and Obama for agreeing to appear. It was so good to actually have the candidates under no artificial time constraints and allowed to develop answers rather than spout sound bites. I didn't watch all of McCain's segment but I don't recall one instance of either of them dealing with a difficult question by answering a different one.

Are you a complete idiot? Obama was NOT asked to name 3 people he admires. I posted the transcript of the question at 4:27. He was asked to name the WISEST people he knows, and then asked who he might rely on in his administration.

Get it? Nobody asked him who he admired. You've been screaming that he refused to answer the question and why he wasn't held accountable, but YOU got the question wrong.

Geez, be a man and admit you screwed it up.

Posted by SanAntonioRogue at 2008-08-18 07:52 PM |

You got it San. I used admire instead of wise. I wrote refused insead of ignored. Do you think he understood the queston? His wife and his grandmother are his wisest choices? Why is it McCain and everyone who watched knew what Warren meant? While you are at it please explain his when life begins answer as well.

I'm surprised that so many people are coming up with excuses for McCain. He had a chance to stop Breyer, Ginsburg and Souter from serving lifetime appointments on the Supreme Court. If he truly believes they "legislate from the bench" and should never have been nominated, he owes the public an explanation of why he voted to put them there.

Senators like McCain are the reason they're on the court.

"You got it San. I used admire instead of wise. I wrote refused insead of ignored"

That it Crispee.... dig it deeper.

He was asked who are the wisest people you know. He did not refuse to answer OR ignore the question. He said his wife and his grandmother, and why.

The second half of the question was who are you going to rely on in your administration. He did not refuse to answer OR ignore the question. He said Coburn, Kennedy, Lugar, and people like them, and why.

You didn't even really know what the question even was but you felt compelled to whine on about how he ignored it. Yet the transcripts show he answered it perfectly legitimately and on point.

And you don't even have the basic sense to admit you were fundamentally wrong on this. Sad.

"While you are at it please explain his when life begins answer as well."

Don't try to deflect from your own stupidity. And please don't bother to call anyone else a blind partisan hack as you seem to revel in epitomizing that trait.

Crispee-
Let me get this straight. Obama was asked to name the "wisest people he knows", and refused to the question that wasn't asked: "I would love to know why the medai doesn't press Obama's refusal to name three people he admires One would think it would be Ghandi, or Lincoln, Kennedy, Jesse Jackson... Seeing as he has their pictures in his Senate office."

I doubt Obama has ever met Ghandi or Lincoln or JFK, so they couldn't possibly be the "wisest people he knows." It doesn't help mush that they are all dead.

Now, Jessie Jackson, well he is black and alive and Obama has probably met him, so would that have pleased you?

Sure San. Keep calling me stupid and defend Obama's answer. That's what Warren meant. That's why McCain answered as he did right? If you think this who is the real idiot here? Like I posted earlier, he has pitures of Lincoln, Ghandi, Kennedy in his office. Why would anyone say their wife or mother over the more obvious choices?

This is fun. Crispee mistakenly wrote that Obama "refused instead of ignored" the question that Obama wasn't asked????????

Do I really have that right?

What do you expect? The very first words McCain uttered, right out of the gate was a lie:

Q. WELCOME BACK TO THE SADDLEBACK CIVIL FORUM ON THE PRESIDENCY AND WELCOME SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN.

NOW MY FIRST QUESTION, WAS THE CONE OF SILENCE COMFORTABLE THAT YOU WERE IN JUST NOW?

A. I WAS TRYING TO HEAR THROUGH THE WALL.

YAV-
McCain cheated. It's too obvious to ignore.

But the more important question is why didn't Obama answer the question he wasn't asked.

Crispee-
Let me get this straight. Obama was asked to name the "wisest people he knows", and refused to the question that wasn't asked: "I would love to know why the medai doesn't press Obama's refusal to name three people he admires One would think it would be Ghandi, or Lincoln, Kennedy, Jesse Jackson... Seeing as he has their pictures in his Senate office."

Yes I parsed words and used admire instead of wise. The way I interpreted the question was not so much he knew and currently in his life. It was more of who he considered the wisest people today or in a historic sense. Like the way McCain answered using Reagan, Teddy Roosevelt. I found it interesting the differences in their answers.

There is a difference in meaning between "the wisest" people you know and the people you "admire the most" you twit. They might be the same people, they might not.

McCain answered it as he saw it, so did Obama. Why would you NOT say your wife was one of the wisest people you know, if that's how you felt?

Next time be sure you know what question was actually asked before you start in with the ill-informed commentary about your perception of the answer. It can sure help keep you from looking silly.

"The way I interpreted the question was not so much he knew and currently in his life."

Then you got the question wrong, in your "interpretation" of what is literally provable. How did that happen, that you were completely in error and look like a fool for bashing Obama for not answering a quetion he wasn't asked?

"Yes I parsed words and used admire instead of wise. The way I interpreted the question was not so much he knew and currently in his life. It was more of who he considered the wisest people today or in a historic sense. Like the way McCain answered using Reagan, Teddy Roosevelt. I found it interesting the differences in their answers.

Posted by crispee_oc"

Replacing the word actually used with a different word with a different meaning is not "parsing".

But I guess backpedaling has to begin somewhere.

YAV-
McCain cheated. It's too obvious to ignore.

If you mean by being more sharp and answering questions directy, I wouldn't call that cheating. Maybe you should hear what Warren said before commenting on some skewed post. Hell Warren even told them the subjects he would be covering. It's no wonder why Obama wants nothing to do with the Townhall forum.

Replacing the word actually used with a different word with a different meaning is not "parsing".

But I guess backpedaling has to begin somewhere.

Posted by SanAntonioRogue at 2008-08-18 09:06 PM

Anything else? You done? Can you answer the question or are you going to look for something else you don't like?

Crispee-
The event was broadcast live, and McCain wasn't in the church under a "cone of silence". He was late, in his motorcade, in a private vehicle with only McCain and his top aides, and the questions Obama was being asked were being broadcast live.

(not that you have any grasp of the questions Obama was actually asked...)

"Can you answer the question or are you going to look for something else you don't like?"

What I don't like is people who lie, and I intend to continue to call you and anyone else out on it when you do it.

Crispee-
The event was broadcast live, and McCain wasn't in the church under a "cone of silence". He was late, in his motorcade, in a private vehicle with only McCain and his top aides, and the questions Obama was being asked were being broadcast live.

(not that you have any grasp of the questions Obama was actually asked...)

Posted by BetelG at 2008-08-18 09:11 PM

Then I guess Warren lied today. Or you got it wrong.

"Can you answer the question or are you going to look for something else you don't like?"

Do you still want an explanation for why Obama didn't answer the question he wasn't asked?

At a certain point, and maybe that would be now, I must ask myself if you are too stupid to breathe, and would I be ethically remiss if I didn't remind you to do so.

Crispee-
Breathe.

re: "Then I guess Warren lied today."

How so?

"Can you answer the question or are you going to look for something else you don't like?"

What I don't like is people who lie, and I intend to continue to call you and anyone else out on it when you do it.

Posted by SanAntonioRogue at 2008-08-18 09:13 PM

Then you are not man enough or don't know?

I admitted I chose the wrong words and I posted how I interpreted the question. Right or wrong. If that makes me a liar so be it. Like I relly give a rats ass what you call me out on.

Crispee-
re: "I admitted I chose the wrong words and I posted how I interpreted the question. Right or wrong. If that makes me a liar so be it. Like I relly give a rats ass what you call me out on."

I doubt it makes you a liar. It seems obvious that you just had no idea what you were talking about. I don't see how it's any more complicated than that.

Then I guess Warren lied today. Or you got it wrong.

I'm curious, Crispee. What did Warren lie about that you're talking about?

IMHO, Warren did lie, of course. No 'cone of silence' no procedures in place to make sure neither Obama nor McCain cheated. Warren reiterated the 'cone of silence' bull several times. He gave the entire event an air of integrity that turned out to be undeserved.

The link I posted is a complete transcript of the event provided by Rick Warren.

Then you got the question wrong, in your "interpretation" of what is literally provable. How did that happen, that you were completely in error and look like a fool for bashing Obama for not answering a quetion he wasn't asked?

Then why did McCain understand the question and answer Reagan, Roosevelt etc. where Obama chose his wife and grandmother?

"Like I relly give a rats ass what you call me out on."

Yes, you've made it abundantly clear you are not especially concerned with truth or accuracy as long as your agenda is served.

"Then why did McCain understand the question and answer Reagan, Roosevelt etc. where Obama chose his wife and grandmother?

Posted by crispee_oc"

Good Lord. Just when you think he has grasped the edge of the pit with his fingertips and might possibly pull himself out... wham, right back in again.

Then I guess Warren lied today. Or you got it wrong.

I'm curious, Crispee. What did Warren lie about that you're talking about?

IMHO, Warren did lie, of course. No 'cone of silence' no procedures in place to make sure neither Obama nor McCain cheated. Warren reiterated the 'cone of silence' bull several times. He gave the entire event an air of integrity that turned out to be undeserved.

The link I posted is a complete transcript of the event provided by Rick Warren.

All I can answer to is what I heard today on a talk show. He said it was absurd for anyone to clam McCain cheated. Warren claimed the green room had no monitor when McCain was waiting. He also stated both candidates knew the subject of his questions before hand. So how did McCain cheat?

Posted by BetelG

boydcooperasshipe is performing his normal ankle biting routine.

Crispee-
I don't know that McCain was asked the identical question. But if McCain was asked who the "wisest people he knows" are and he answered "Roosevelt" then he's holding seances in between squandering whatever class he has left.

Good Lord. Just when you think he has grasped the edge of the pit with his fingertips and might possibly pull himself out... wham, right back in again.

Posted by SanAntonioRogue at 2008-08-18 09:26 PM

Let me know when you grasp the question. Like McCain did. I guess it is above your pay grade.

"boydcooperasshipe is performing his normal ankle biting routine.

Posted by eberly at 2008-08-18 09:28 PM |"

I'm always a fan of the classic self-retorting retort.

"boydcooperasshipe is performing his normal ankle biting routine.

Posted by eberly "

And just what is it that you're doing, Beverly?

"Let me know when you grasp the question.

Posted by crispee_oc"

Now THAT is priceless and gets a well-deserved FF!

Crispee-
I don't know that McCain was asked the identical question. But if McCain was asked who the "wisest people he knows" are and he answered "Roosevelt" then he's holding seances in between squandering whatever class he has left.

San is going rip you apart for lying.