Obama Takes First Direct Shot At Palin, page 1
Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 1 times
Topic started on 7-9-2008 @ 07:35 AM by iamcamouflage

Obama Takes First Direct Shot At Palin


www.huffingtonpost.com
"Don't be fooled," Obama told the crowd surrounding him in a large barn. "John McCain's party, with the help of John McCain, has been in charge" for nearly eight years.

"I know the governor of Alaska has been saying she's change, and that's great," Obama said. "She's a skillful politician. But, you know, when you've been taking all these earmarks when it's convenient, and then suddenly you're the champion anti-earmark person, that's not change. Come on! I mean, words mean something, you can't just make stuff up."

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
embeds.blogs.foxnews.com
hosted.ap.org

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Alaska 1st in Earmarks Per Capita- McCain Earmark Hipocracy
Status Quo Is Now Party of Change
Palin's Small Alaska Town Secured Big Federal Funds with "Earmarks"


reply posted on 7-9-2008 @ 08:21 AM by marg6043
reply to post by iamcamouflage


Bingo!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I believe that in politics the politicians actually think we are all idiots, I say most American are gullible and easily manipulated by media but idiots they are not, is just that by the time they figure out that they has been taken for fools is already too late.



reply posted on 7-9-2008 @ 11:07 AM by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by iamcamouflage


I support more of this "calling each other out" either by the candidates or the media. For years we have been asking soft questions and accepting non-answers and we, the people, suffer for it.

John McCain is not a harbinger of change. And certainly Sarah Palin is not. I don't think it's "taking a shot" to expose reality and call for the truth. I think it's good (for the people) politics.


reply posted on 7-9-2008 @ 11:42 AM by iamcamouflage
reply to post by kozmo


It is not an ommission.

Lets see here,
Republican president 20 of previous 28 years.
Republican controlled congress 1992-2006 14 years
6 of those 14 years it was a majority in house and senate + a Republican president who made one veto in those 6.

And you want to claim that the Democratic congress who have been in majority(a very slim majority I might add) for less than two years, constantly fighting a Republican president who has all of a sudden found his veto pen(9 vetos, since demacratic majority 2006). Not to mention that the slim majority they have is NOT enough to over turn a veto. They have tried to improve the country and get us out of this hole but they are stuck from every angle.

You will see 4 more years of the same old song and dance routine that we have experienced for the past 30 years.

Remind me again what party has had the largest majority and most of the control for the last 30 years. The current state of this country, good or bad, is the direct result of a Republican agenda.

If the Republicans wanted change, why didnt they make those changes when they had no opposition? They want beat the drum of drilling but they had all the opportunity in the world to open up drilling where ever they wanted and dont act as though gas prices started going up in 2006. I'm opposed to the pointless drilling but the Republicans could have made if happen if they wanted to and now they are acting like its all the democrats.

And to your final thoughts about skeletons, you are right absolutely, you cant make it to the top without stepping on a few people. But dont sit here and try to place blame on the people who have had by far the least amount of change power in this country for 30 years.

Are you supporting any candidate? What makes you think that your candidate will do what they say they will do? Should we all just give up on the process? You seem to be full of criticism but short on answers.


reply posted on 7-9-2008 @ 11:47 AM by iamcamouflage
reply to post by Jemison


The difference is that Obama is not running on a "no more earmarks" ticket. I have never said that all earmarks are good and the process of implementing them seems to have many loopholes that allow for corruption but that does not mean all earmarks are bad. But again, if you claim to be above all that and then the record shows you are not, you have a credibility problem.

You are correct in saying that McCain has the best earmark record but he has taken at least one earmark even though he claims he has never taken any. McCain Earmark
And you are also correct that he has sponsored many bills to rid the govt of earmarks and I commend him for that. There are a few issues that he has stood to the entire govt/congress about and I again commend McCain on that. But if you are running a campaign on "I have never taken an earmark/We(McCain/Palin) are against earmarks" you better hope you have a clean record when it comes to earmarks. McCain has a pretty good record sans the one, but Palin has accepted and requested earmarks, while claiming she told congress "thanks but no thanks". This hurts her credibility.

This article speaks more to the hipocracy of the Republicans running on a newly designed 'Real Change' campaign. What a joke.

[edit on 7-9-2008 by iamcamouflage]

Pages:     ^^TOP^^