1. Welcome to CowboysZone!  Join us!  Come on!  You know you want to!

McCain leads, Obama follows

Discussion in 'Political Zone' started by irvin88, Sep 26, 2008.

  1. irvin88

    irvin88 Active Member

    1,668 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    McCain leads, Obama follows

    The neat thing about a presidential race between two Senators is that voters can make direct comparisons between the candidates that otherwise are not possible. This year, the comparisons work in John McCain's favor.

    McCain pushed for the "surge" in Iraq. Obama opposed it, saying it wouldn't work. When it worked, Obama said he knew it would work, but defended his vote anyway.

    Two years ago, McCain warned that Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac were in serious need of reform and he so-sponsored legislation to reform it. Obama did not support this legislation, which the Democrats blocked. Obama was near the top of the list of recipients of contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, and two executives from these outfits were among his campaign advisors.

    McCain also had the right line on the Russian invasion of Georgia (though this was not a legislative issue). As Rudy Giuliani recounted at the Republican Convention, Obama waffled for a while and eventually adopted McCain's view. McCain led; Obama followed

    Most recently, McCain figured out that he needed to get back to Washington to engage, and if possible provide leadership in, the momentous issue of the financial sector bailout. While McCain opted to help make something happen, Obama said he could be reached by phone if anything did happen.

    Obama's position was untenable, so he eventually followed McCain back to Washington.

    Hoping to cover for their "follower" of a presidential candidate, Democrats are claiming that McCain has done more harm than good in the legislative debate. Although this is always a possibility with McCain (and, indeed, just about anyone who is willing to lead), the Democrats' case is absurd.

    Their argument is that Congress was on the verge of a deal until McCain entered the picture and caused Republican House members to block it. The problems with this script are several. First, there is no evidence that House Republicans were ever on board with any deal. Second, the support of House Republicans is not needed to pass bailout legislation. The Democrats control the House.

    The Democrats counter the second point by saying that a majority of House Dems won't support a deal unless House Republicans provide "cover." But this argument raises more problems than it addresses. First, it is a serious condemnation of House Dems (too gutless to do what they think is right, even in the face of a potential economic meltdown). Second it is a serious condemnation of Nancy Pelosi (too ineffective to whip her troops into line even in the face of a potential economic meltdown). Third, it casts serious doubt on the wisdom of the deal that McCain is falsely accused of scuttling. If the deal made sense, House Dems wouldn't believe they need "cover" from House Republicans.

    Fourth, the "cover" argument shows what a non-factor Obama is in all of this. The Dems complain (preposterously) that McCain has riled up House Republicans or failed to bring them around. Meanwhile, no one seems to be asking why Obama hasn't helped the House leadership obtain sufficient support from House Dems.

    There's a reason why this question isn't being asked. Obama is lightweight from whom leadership is not, and should not, be expected.
  2. MetalHead

    MetalHead Benched

    6,031 Messages
    1 Likes Received
    Tell me something new.
  3. ZeroClub

    ZeroClub just trying to get better

    7,619 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    Is Vegas taking odd on whether Senator Suspension will change his mind about attending the debate (again)?

    Just curious.
  4. irvin88

    irvin88 Active Member

    1,668 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    Bradley effect should do real well.:laugh2:
  5. ConcordCowboy

    ConcordCowboy Mr. Buckeye

    12,747 Messages
    2 Likes Received
    If McCain would have followed Obama's lead on Iraq we would never have been there in the first place talking about whether the surge worked or not.

    Or 4000 plus dead.

    Or a Trillion spent.

    Or taking troops and equipment away from the real problem...where the people who really caused 9/11 to happen are...Afghanistan.

    Yeah...we really need to follow McCain.

  6. Angus

    Angus Active Member

    5,064 Messages
    1 Likes Received
    Yes, if McCain had followed Obama's lead, Saddam (the other Hussein) would still be in power and that WMD that disappeared into Syria would have been used, Al Qaeda would be here instead of Iraq, and instead of 4,000 deaths there would be 400,000 or 40,000,000 at terrorist hands.

    If Obama becomes POTUS, you'd better learn to speak Arabic and obey Sharia law, as Europe is beginning to do.

    :( j/k (maybe)
  7. Rack Bauer

    Rack Bauer Federal Agent

    22,580 Messages
    516 Likes Received
  8. ConcordCowboy

    ConcordCowboy Mr. Buckeye

    12,747 Messages
    2 Likes Received
    He had nothing to do with 9/11...nor did he have WMD's.

    There is no debate about this.

    But it's your only reason left to justify going there so you grasp it.

    I like the Hussein reference...like they're related or it has anything to do with this.



    Exactly how do you know that without the invasion of Iraq that Al-Qaeda would be here?

    And WMD's would have been used?

    And you know this because?

    Because Bush said so?


    More of the same....FEAR...FEAR....FEAR.
  9. ThaBigP

    ThaBigP New Member

    2,062 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    Dunno. But if you'd bet Obama would decline a debate....you'd have won....10 times.
  10. ThaBigP

    ThaBigP New Member

    2,062 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    Point 1 - he didn't bring up 9/11 you did. And yes, Saddam had WMD, he used them on the Kurds. The question is where they went. Were they dismantled? If so he didn't report that as he was supposed to. Or were they moved? leading us to the 2nd point...

    Point 2 - no, he didn't make up the Syria deal, nor did "Bush say it". Russians were in Iraq moving truckloads of equipment at breakneck speed into Syria with the Iraqi army...just before we invaded. This was even shown during the now infamous Powel UN presentation. Also, senior Iraqi generals after the war said that's what happened to the stuff they still had laying around. Aside from invading Syria, I don't know how you'd ever prove that though. But it wasn't merely "made up" as you'd like to believe.

    Point 3 - whether this is mere "fear mongering" is up to the individual...depends on whether or not you fear Sharia law being implemented here. I don't think he's implying Obama will decree Sharia law...far from it. His soft stance on terror and immigration will inevitibly lead to this however. I ask you, what politician in England decreed Sharia law? None. And yet it was revealed last week (or thereabouts) that the government has given its blessing to Sharia courts there whose decisions now have full support of English law enforcement. There's one emotional state more dangerous than fear my friend. It's called denial. Especially when the evidence is all around us. Madrasas are popping up left and right here in the US.
  11. MetalHead

    MetalHead Benched

    6,031 Messages
    1 Likes Received
    1.Even your fabricated candidate admitted that the surge worked.
    2.5000+ died the first day of D Day...a volunteer Army.Because of them you are not speaking German today.
    3.A trillion spentsis not equal as a trillion invested...wise up son.
    4.Its not over in Kabul.

    Wise up kid.
  12. ConcordCowboy

    ConcordCowboy Mr. Buckeye

    12,747 Messages
    2 Likes Received
    Listen...I'll say it again.

    If we don't go there in the first place everything you mentioned doesn't matter.

    That's good decision making...not lets go to war...then oh man this is screwed up...but hey lets look for some things to say it was worth it.

    And for the love of God...knock off the WWII comparisons.

    Nothing in Iraq was worth it.
  13. ConcordCowboy

    ConcordCowboy Mr. Buckeye

    12,747 Messages
    2 Likes Received
    I brought up 9/11 because that was what started this whole thing in motion and Bush/Cheney tried to tie Saddam to it.

    Just taking Saddam out of power was never going to wash as a reason to go to war.

    He said as a matter of fact that WMD's would be used and Al-Qeada would be here instead of there...if Iraq wasn't invaded.

    I asked for proof.

    He has none and never will. It's an opinion.

    I think that's BS.

    And it sounds just like Bush.

    Oh come off of it...this you'll be speaking Arabic in America if Obama's elected is just typical Republican fear tactics pure and simple.

    It's right out of the Rove playbook.
  14. ThreeSportStar80

    ThreeSportStar80 Benched

    27,093 Messages
    0 Likes Received

    It's no use, you have a lot of stupid people in the world dude, they don't "get it".
  15. zrinkill

    zrinkill Diamond surrounded by trash

    33,026 Messages
    768 Likes Received
    That I agree with.

    They are called Liberals.
  16. WoodysGirl

    WoodysGirl Shut up and play! Staff Member

    66,709 Messages
    6,474 Likes Received
    Now, now, now, guys... Let's chill with the name calling. Zone rules still apply down here.
  17. BigDFan5

    BigDFan5 In Tebow I Trust

    14,914 Messages
    27 Likes Received

    What a load of horse ****, Obama was a state senator when the Iraq War vote came about he was not there to "follow" Dems supported the vote including those such as Kerry, Edwards, Clinton etc.

    When it came time to vote to defund the troops and bring them home how did Obama vote? He voted to spend those trillions in Iraq yup he is a leader of men alright LOL
  18. ConcordCowboy

    ConcordCowboy Mr. Buckeye

    12,747 Messages
    2 Likes Received
    I don't care where he was...he took a stand against the war at a time when it was very unpopular to do so.

    Knowing full well at the time he was going to be running for the U.S. Senate and would have to answer for it...if he turned out to be wrong.

    And he wasn't.
  19. Royal Laegotti

    Royal Laegotti Dyin' ain't much of a livin', boy!

    4,971 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    He could've taken a stand like not many folks in this country get to and vote against it (the war), but as you suggest he was too scared to do anything that might potentially hurt his chances of getting elected, even stand up for what he believed in and vote against the war. That's not leadership that's run away and hide!
  20. ConcordCowboy

    ConcordCowboy Mr. Buckeye

    12,747 Messages
    2 Likes Received

    Did I say this?

Share This Page