In his weekly radio address, John McCain spoke of change. Real change.Now that our party conventions are behind us, and both my opponent and I have chosen our running-mates, the choice before America is clearer than ever. For Governor Palin and me, change is more than a slogan, and it's not about party. It's about changing the way business is done, and it's the reason we entered politics to begin with.
What struck me the most about Senator Obama's convention was how much talk we heard about "change" from leaders in Congress who are running the show. Senator Obama has gone out of his way to support his party leadership. But to really fight for change in Washington, you have to know just who you're taking on, and Senator Obama just doesn't get it. The problem in Washington is not Republicans, and the problem is not Democrats. The problem with Washington is that too many people are working for themselves and not working for you.
Click here to listen to McCain's speech.
Technorati tags:
politics 
election 
Democrats Democrats 
Obama 
Barack Obama 
economy 
McCain 
John McCain
6 comments:
From the LA Times: "NEW YORK -- John McCain got it wrong Friday when he asserted that his running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, had not requested any earmarks, the spending directives lawmakers insert in spending bills that McCain has vowed to eliminate.
Palin, in fact, requested $198 million in federal earmarks in February, including such expenses as $487,000 to fight obesity in Alaska and $4 million to develop recreational trails."
So was McCain lying, or just completely unaware of his own running mate's record?
LA Times? Great source Anon...how about the guts to show us all who you are? Ya freaking coward{but being a lib, what else would you be?}
Okay -- want to know who I am? I'm a 45-year old mother of three, including a son who is draft-age. My father lost an arm, his hearing and his sight in one eye working demolition in Guam during WWII. Both my grandfathers fought in WWI -- one in the Navy, one in the army. My grandmother died of asbestiosis after working in a factory building cockpits for WWII in Cicero, Illinos. I am an American with an opinion and I can tell you more about the Marathon Pundit than you want to know.
Might as well give up Anon. This is not a group that wants to deal with facts. Remember this quote from a Bush aide: "That's not the way the world really works anymore. We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality." That applies ten fold to this election. Just repeat something often enough such as "Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11" or "I said thanks but no thanks on that bridge to nowhere" and it becomes their reality, regardless of all of the evidence to the contrary. And then when the corporate owned media finally gets around to calling them on their lies (sort of), they just come up with a ridiculous response like the "L.A Times?" Now you could point out that the Wall Street Journal wrote the same thing, but then they'll come up some other bogus argument, like "that columnist is a liberal."
These people would rather create an alternative reality than debate you on the facts, which are so obviously against them.
Hey Hoot! Thanks for joining in. As for the first anon, this person could only be one of two individuals.
Hey, how ya been! Hope everyone in the family is well. Despite my right wing nuttiness, I'm fine. For the record, I'm still nutty, just less so. More right wing, yes.
Okay, Hoot has a point. LA Times? Not the best source for a conservative blog to argue points. Lemme turn things around and expand on the 2nd anon's point. Let's say I go to the Huffington Post, and I mention sources to prove my point, and these include The Wall Street Journal, and other conservative publications such as the Manchester Union-Leader, the New York Post, and Forbes Magazine. They'd not only laugh me out of there by what I wrote, but my idiocy of referencing this wingnut rags.
Here's some free advice. If the LA Times writes something, wait for a more respectable (among conservative) publication, again the WSJ to write it. Earmarks, yeah, she did it. But turning it around, she was the advocate for Wasilla, then Alaska.
Of course Obama has asked for his share of earmarks, and besides, Palin is on the bottom of the ticket. McCain's earmark record is almost spotless.
2nd anon: You I don't know, so I'm going to deal with facts. Conservatives are able to deal with facts. Whearas your guy, Obama, is wrapping his liberal message in packages such as "Hope" and "Change."
And which of the groups "wants to deal with facts?"
I don't know a single person who believes that Saddam Hussein was behind the 9/11. Not one.
How many of the Obama suppoters are aware of his deep ties to Tony Rezko? Or Emil Jones? Or Bill "Bomber" Ayers?
Or for that matter, his campaign aid, David Axerlrod, and his deep ties to the Daley Machine?
We wingnuts are quite in tune with facts.
Really? Not one person? How about your party's selection for V.P.?
From the Tribune (9/12/08):
Sarah Palin connects Iraq to 9/11
Palin told a brigade of soldiers (that included her son, Track) that they were headed to Iraq to "defend the innocent from the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans."
You might have wanted to say "a single intelligent person."
Post a Comment