General Election Poll

( – promoted by Colorado Pols)

Kind of curious how everyone pans out here

Who Will You Be Voting for President

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

220 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. DavidThi808 says:

    Her energy policy sounds better than that from any other candidate.

  2. redstateblues says:

    I will be so incredibly proud to vote for this man, and not becuase of anything superficial. I truly believe that his intelligence, judgment and historical knowledge are what this country desperately needs after eight years of ignorance, pride and historical arrogance.

    • parsingreality says:

      I think Eisenhower, Kennedy, Clinton, and Carter all fit your criteria.

      I’m not saying BO isn’t those things, but even a homely girl looks pretty in a room full of ugly ones.  

      • Go Blue says:

        When even Republican donors think McCain is worse than Bush!

        Abdullah Makhlouf, the owner of a discount stereo store who is one of Mr. Abdullah’s closest friends, and his wife contributed $9,200.

        “He’s like a worse copy than Bush,” Mr. Makhlouf said of Mr. McCain.

        All McCain can do is run against (lie about) Obama. He has nothing to offer but more of the same, if not worse.

        • parsingreality says:

          …of reading and working people.  Gotta give him credit where it is due.  

          John doesn’t have it.  He makes Gore and Kerry look positively animated.  

    • mitchturb says:

      I hope you are not talking about Obama’s judgment to vote against the surge in Iraq that, if not implemented, would have cost thousands of lives in American casualties.  Or the judgment of Obama to raise corn-based ethanol on a pedestal and claim it to be the most effective alternative fuel source available all the while every single analysis on the fuel claims that gasoline is more efficient for the environment and economy.  His judgment is what has allowed him to legislate billions of dollars in farm subsidies for the wealthy corporations that become reluctant to sell corn to the American people and instead put corn into ethanol production.  Ever wonder why the prices on milk, eggs, bread, and cheese are skyrocketing?  Obama’s judgment.

      You like Obama’s knowledge?  I would also envy someone who believes there are 57 states…

      His historical knowledge? Obama pandered to veterans on Memorial Day with his lack of historical knowledge when he claimed his uncle served in World War II and was one of the first into Auschwitz.  Too bad that only the Russians liberated those in Auschwitz and his uncle never was in World War II.  For someone to lie about military service is a dishonor to this country and our historical identity.

      John McCain is the person who will set America on a track that has been abandoned for many years.  His track is for you, me, and every single person living in this nation.  A track to help the unemployed find jobs and keep them.  A track to once again becoming an adored nation around the world.  A track to energy efficiency.  A track that will allow all people, not just liberals, conservatives, or independents, to live a life that we all deserve.

      I will be honored to cast my ballot for John McCain.

      • Arvadonian says:

        you must be trying for a ride on his campaign bus!

        • mitchturb says:

          Actually, unlike many of Obama’s supporters, I really am enthusiastic about supporting McCain.  For the first time, we have a Republican who is willing to work beyond party lines.

          Unfortunately, many Obama supporters are the ones working for the gimmicks.

          • Arvadonian says:

            aware that Obama is giving gimmicks/prizes to bloggers who support him like the McCain campaign is.


            • mitchturb says:

              Obama gives gimmicks for EVERYTHING!! As I am aware, donating to McCain you do not receive any kind of gimmick, it is the power of hope that drives people to donate to McCain’s campaign.  Unfortunately, Obama has to offer hundreds of gimmicks like seeing him backstage for people to donate money.  

              It is already unfortunate that Obama has to bring big money into politics by disregarding his pledge to apply for campaign financing…

              • Arvadonian says:

                it is unfortunate that McCain has to resort to socialism to fund his campaign.

                I’ve donated to Obama and the only thing I’ve gotten is a bumper sticker—which I paid for.

              • bob ewegen says:

                How dare he. Why doesn’t he rely on public financing like George W. Bush did?  Oops, Bush raised so much private money he told the public funders to get lost.

                Ahh, but when a Republican does something, up to and including Murder 1, it is ipso facto good, right, Mitch? The exact same act done by a Democrat is bad, including honoring your father and mother and keeping holy the sabbath.

                Rs-good in all things.

                Ds-personification of Satan.

                Arvadonian, I hope you’re taking notes because I don’t want to have to spell this out again.

                • Arvadonian says:

                  using welfare to fund his Presidential Campaign.

                  I guess that makes him a “welfare king”.

                • mitchturb says:

                  I actually never voted for George Bush and do not support him.

                  What I find curious is that Obama glorifies the public financing system but then when it comes time to actually display his support, he does not.  He says that the system is broken but even Russ Feingold says that only the primary public financing system is broken, not the general election public financin system.  Obama whines about the Republican groups that will advertise against him… like or AFL-CIO? Oh wait, the outside groups that are advertising are DEMOCRAT!

                  • Go Blue says:

                    and the word is “DEMOCRATIC” you McCarthyte scum.  

                    • mitchturb says:

                      How could McCain broke a system he has yet to utilize?  I don’t think he uses it until September.  

                    • Go Blue says:

                      Have you not heard of McCain-Feingold? McComplain is now curtailing his own law. Oh in case you didn’t know, it’s his oil lobbyist led campaign that pulling in all of his money, not public financing.

                      As one republican donor said, McCain is worse than Bush. Bush never had any principles to begin with. McCain completely sold his out.

                    • AtlantaBill says:

                      Obama decided not to accept public financing because of two factors:

                      1.  John McCain has an entire network devoted

                         to getting him elected – i.e., Faux News.  

                      2.  Right-wing talk radio working on his behalf

                         24/7, whereas, there is no comparable

                         resource supporting dems.

                      Dems in the past have fallen into the trap of thinking they are at parity with the rethugs when they accept public financing of their campaigns.  In reality they are not because of the above two factors and find themselves lacking resources to confront the onslaught of attacks that come from the hannity’s and limbaugh’s of the right.  Obama recognized how the game is played and will now have the resources to fight the right-wingers on all fronts.  I say good decision by Obama.

                • john says:

                  I sure missed you. How’ve you been?

          • BlueCat says:

            polls on enthusiasm of supporters all show more enthusiasm by several magnitudes on the part of Obama supporters.  McCain is the one with an enthusiasm factor in the teens. Most of his support is just from anti-Dem or anti-Obama people.  Hardly anyone is jumping up and down with excitement over McSame

      • redstateblues says:

        go back in time to 2000 so you can vote for George W. Bush twice again.

      • bob ewegen says:

        Obama’s great-uncle “Served in the 89th Infantry Division that Liberated Ohrdruf, a Subcamp of Buchenwald, the First Camp Liberated by Americans, on April 4, 1945.”

        Obama did mispeak by saying Auschwitz instead of Buchanwald. You were either inexcusably irresponsible or deliberately lying when you claimed his great uncle never served in the military at all.

        • mitchturb says:

          You must mean I was correct.

          Take a look at the video…

          Obama says uncle NOT great uncle and panders by ‘conveniently’ mixing up the facts on Auschwitz.  So, Obama NEVER had an uncle in the military (as i said before). While he did have a great uncle, that is not what he said.  Also, he lied about Auschwitz.  Seems as though he has excellent historical knowledge when he can’t even remember his own family that he was ‘so close to.’  

          Barack “Anything for a Vote” Obama

          • bob ewegen says:

            Read the link.

            You are deliberating lying, distorting the truth as blatantly as you are is a calculated lie. At least, we now know you’re not a fool, you’re dishonest.  

            Always good to know who you’re dealing with;-)  I’ll bet you “didn’t inhale” either!

            • mitchturb says:

              How am I lying by quoting the facts and Obama directly?

              • redstateblues says:

                Saying that the anbar awakening was becuase of the surge, when it was labeled that by the military well before the surge was even an idea. But I guess since CBS edited it in McCain’s favor that he doesn’t have to be held acountable when he slips.

                By the way, people often refer to their great-aunts and great-uncles as simple aunts and uncles all the time.

                • mitchturb says:

                  Do you think the Anbar Awakening really could have been as successful without the surge?  

                  • redstateblues says:

                    that John McCain was right in saying that it happened BECAUSE of the surge when in fact in began well before?

                    John McCain was wrong about the war from the start, just like his buddy Dubya. Just becuase the surge ended up working does not mean he didn’t make a huge blunder in supporting the war blindly all the way. By the way, has the Surge really worked?

                    Sure we have less violence in Iraq, but where did all of the fighters go? Did we really kill them all? No. Those fighters are now killing more U.S. troops in Afghanistan. Now they’re talking about another surge in Afghanistan. Are we going to keep splitting soldiers’ tours between the two nations forever?

                    • mitchturb says:

                      Wrong.  The reason we were losing was because Al-Qaeda was able to recruit in many small Iraqi villages.  Due to the surge and the Anbar Awakening (which couldn’t have succeeded without the surge), the villages began to shun out the Al-Qaeda militants and hence you have less people to recruit. Al-Qaeda in Iraq has almost completely died out.

                  • RedGreen says:

                    Probably not, but McCain’s support for the Iraqi invasion and occupation in the first place was far more consequential, cost thousands of American lives, and diverted troops and resources from the real War on Terror.

                    Do you think al Qaida would be regrouping on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border if McCain hadn’t made such a huge blunder by supporting a war of opportunity rather than keeping his eye on the ball?

                    it was a colossal failure of judgment that means we simply can’t trust McCain to keep America safe.

                    • mitchturb says:

                      All the while Barack Obama plots his first foreign policy act: Bomb Pakistan without telling the country.  By the way, Pakistan is our ALLY and is a nuclear weapon-carrying country…

                    • RedGreen says:

                      McCain’s policy toward taking out al Qaida forces in the border areas. And the current administration’s policy, as demonstrated last week in a successful strike in Pakistan against an al Qaida weapons expert. It’s a shame neither McCain and Bush didn’t come up with the policy on their own, but had to wait for Obama to articulate it first before adopting it. I say we go with the candidate who’s been right from the start about keeping America safe.

                    • mitchturb says:

                      McCain has said he would not invade/bomb a country like Pakistan without giving knowledge to the government.  He has said he would rather persuade, through non-violence, the country into taking care of it themselves.  

                • Half Glass Full says:

                  I guess she’s a dirty liar just like Barack Obama.

                  She’s pretty uppity too.

              • bob ewegen says:

                A great uncle is an uncle. I always talk about my Uncle John, and my kids also call him uncle john.  By your alleged logic, my kids are lying by calling my uncle john what everybody in my family calls him, uncle john, rather than them calling him “great uncle” John. You are lying by deliberately distorting the truth and trying to mislead people. If I say “Hitler had a moustache and Mitchturb has a moustache, so Misturb is Hitler,” it’s a lie, even assuming for the sake of arguement that you actually have a moustache. Deliberate omission of pertinent facts (obama’s uncle/ great uncle helped liberate buchenwald) to create a false impression (Obama was lying instead of making a simple mistake about the camp his relative liberated) is a lie. And thus you are a liar.  

                  Now, begone, shill, you have disgraced yourself enough.

              • Jambalaya says:

                ..the author’s point gets you nowhere.

                A “great uncle” is a subset of “uncle.”  Oh, wait, a “subset” is…

          • RedGreen says:

            You know, my great uncle served in the Navy during World War II and sailed aboard the U.S.S. Indianapolis, on the voyage before that ship’s final one. Sometimes, in casual conversation, I’ve referred to him as my uncle, because in family conversation everyone called him “Uncle Lloyd.” And once or twice I’ve fumbled and mentioned his service on the U.S.S. Indiana, which was an entirely different ship. I guess that disqualifies me from ever serving as President.

            You’ve really nailed the critical issue in the 2008 Presidential election. Thank you, mitchturd. Thank you.

            • mitchturb says:

              It is not a critical issue, it is just a sign of who Obama is.

              By the way Indiana and Indianapolis are very close… Auschwitz and Buchenwald are hardly close.

              • redstateblues says:

                SUNNI and SHIITE. ou know who got those two unimportant, easily confusable words mixed up? John McCain. But he must have been tired, or thirsty or something. He gets a free pass from you.

              • RedGreen says:

                No, they’re not, and you besmirch the memory of all the brave sailors who served — and died for their country — on each of them. One is a South Dakota-class battleship and the other a Portland-class cruiser. They couldn’t be more different.

                When the U.S.S. Indianapolis met its demise, it was the largest single loss of life in U.S. Naval history. At least John McCain, a Navy veteran, would know the difference and not make such a flippant remark. He’d be ashamed of your ignorance, mitchturd. Deeply ashamed.

                • mitchturb says:

                  I was talking about the way they are spelled…  by the way, YOU are the person who says you get them confused on more than one occasion so save the lecture for yourself.

                  • RedGreen says:

                    and acknowledged you’re right, that disqualifies me from running for President. I hold myself to high standards. Apparently you don’t. That’s OK, your candidate doesn’t either.

                    • mitchturb says:

                      High Standards? Like attending a church where the preacher bashes America non-stop and says that AIDS was created by the government to kill black people?  Or associating with Tony Rezko and getting paid for being the guys buddy?

                    • Half Glass Full says:

                      What’s your source for that typically over-the-top Limbaugh-head talking point?

              • Half Glass Full says:

                Why on God’s green earth would Barack Obama have INTENTIONALLY LIED about whether it was Auschwitz or Buchenwald? I mean, for God’s sake… what would have been his motivation?

                “Gee, I guess it’s not that impressive that my grand-uncle helped liberate Buchenwald. So I’ll just say it was my uncle at Auschwitz instead.”

                Yeah, umm humm, SURE that makes sense. He probably got razzed by Michelle and his other family members for his mistake and that’s all that should have happened…

                I think it’s instead a rather telling sign of who Obama’s OPPPONENTS are: the fact that they are charging Obama with DELIBERATELY LYING over so completely inconsequential a slip-up in one speech.

                I don’t think people have been charging John McCain with INTENTIONALLY LYING about the difference between Shiite and Sunni, or the “Iraq-Pakistan border,” etc. etc. What’s alarming instead is how OFTEN he makes MAJOR slipups of this type.

          • BlueCat says:

            I always called my great uncles, just plain uncle and don’t always specify when referring to them.   This is ridiculous.  Fact is, AN UNCLE of some degree or other did HELP LIBERATE A CONCENTRATION CAMP.  As a Jewish American I particularly appreciate that whether he calls him  just plain uncle, whether he’s in fact a great uncle or even a married in uncle or the kind of older generation cousin children often  CALL uncle. For instance, when I  refer to my great aunt’s husband as my Uncle Jack, I don’t think I’m lying.  And I call those who twist it into “he never had an uncle who served in the military” liars.

      • Half Glass Full says:

        … when you claim that Obama thinks there are “57 states,” and when you assert that Obama’s slip about his great-uncle’s military service (it was Buchenwald rather than Auschwitz) was “a dishonor to this country and our historical identity.”

        If that’s the best you can do – it just proves that the first commenter was correct.  

        • mitchturb says:

          It shows that the ignorance that the commenter is worried about is not gone if Obama goes into office with his pandering attitude, elitist agenda, and blandly ignorant policies.

        • BlueCat says:

          was probably a sleep deprived slip based on the number of contests including many places that are not states.  It’s not at all the same thing as switching football teams to pander to an audience in a war story you’ve been telling all of your life or repeatedly showing you really don’t have a clue as to who is who in Iraq/Iran/Afghanistan/Pakistan, not just on one tired occasion but repeatedly and consistently.

          • Half Glass Full says:

            Anyone with a sensible mind like Mitchturb can CLEARLY SEE that Barack Obama was INTENTIONALLY LYING about there being 57 states rather than 50 in America. Or wait, maybe he’s mistaken – quick, Mitchturb, remind me what the talking point of the day is?

            The fact that there were 57 contests (primaries, caucuses, including Bob Schaffer’s favorite vacation spot the Marianas, etc.) was TOTALLY COINCIDENTAL AND IRRELEVANT.

            No, there’s no denying it. Harvard-educated Barack Obama clearly either believes or wants to deceive the rest of us dupes into believing that there are 57 American States.

            And he’s uppity too – excuse me, I mean “arrogant.” Clearly not an “American president for America.”

      • Ray Springfield says:

        McCain is a decent man.

        Obama is a smart man.

        Your Sean Hannity propaganda sadly lacks credibility.

    • bob ewegen says:

      I’m closer on foreign policy to my fellow veteran mccain, who I know and respect. I’ve never met Obama. But looking at America’s track record on race for 400 years, I am tempted to vote for an African-American for its powerful symbolic value.  I was a Catholic in 1960 and knopw what it meant for us to break a long-standing prejudice.

      I’m just sad my late comadre (godmother to my children) Arie Taylor didn’t live to see this day.  

      • Half Glass Full says:

        I’m glad you said that. Obama is more liberal than I like; I’m more of a Bill Clinton Democrat. But I believe the election of an African-American President would be profoundly transformative on many levels.

        I also think that Obama would not disappoint in office. I think he has the intelligence and self-assurance to surround himself with good advisors of all political stripes, and would make reasonable decisions. I don’t see him as following Jimmy Carter’s mistakes of provincialism and meekness.

        I also think there could be a “Nixon in China” opportunity in race relations. As an African-American, Obama could take actions and provide leadership – as he already has, in challenging African-American men to take more responsibility – that no white President could, would or should do.

        As a white 50ish man, I would be incredibly inspired and proud if this country were to elect Barack Obama.  

      • redstateblues says:

        All I’m saying is that his race does not determine my vote. I like him for his policies and not his skin color. But you are right, electing him will show the world and ourselves that we’ve grown past the horrible and brutal past on which our country was built.

  3. Skyler says:

    It’s really quite sad that Obama is the best we could come up with this cycle.

    I know Ralph well, and I couldn’t stomach voting for him. Bob Barr isn’t an option for me, and John McCain is totally excluded.

    Supporting the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil, but there’s really nothing much I can do.

  4. sjintheknow says:

    Gee I wonder who will win?  Do you really think anyone believes this poll means anything? LOL,LOL,LOL

    • redstateblues says:

      That if it was a right-wing poll then winner would be George W. Bush for a third term.

      • mitchturb says:

        The sad thing is, Bush could probably beat Obama if he could run for a third term.

        • redstateblues says:

          You have got to be kidding me. You have just got to be kidding me. 20% approval rating? You are a fool.

          • mitchturb says:

            I think it is more around 30% and did low approval ratings stop him four years ago?  Democrats are running the lousiest candidates lately.  Al Gore was fine.  John Kerry was horrendous. Barack Obama is absolutely the worst possible candidate to run.  Why not just put Kwame Kilpatrick as his V.P. and give McCain the keys to the White House.

            • Go Blue says:

              Do you have a real job or are you housed in the McCain HQ?

            • RedGreen says:

              are at a solid 25 percent, half what they were when Bush ran for re-election. Here’s yesterday’s results:

              President Bush’s approval rating stands at 25 percent, equaling his all-time low reached in June.

              They took a dive after the bungled response to Hurricane Katrina (you’ve seen the pictures of Bush and McCain laughing and joking while their incompetence lost a major American city?), tumbled further after the disastrous Harriet Miers nomination, and slipped into ridiculously low territory after it became clear what Obama has said all along, that the rush to war in Iraq, supported by John McCain, was a drastic mistake that has weakened our national security. But it’s taken the full effects of Bush-McCain economic policy to drive them into historically low territory.

            • bob ewegen says:

              That you applaud the Democrats for saying that electing McCain would be a “third term for George Bush?”

              Funny thing is, McCain disagrees with you, recognizing that being linked to a failed president as unpopular as Bush is political poison for him. But then, McCain, son of a World War II admiral,  also knows the difference between the Indiana (this off the top of my head, but it’s a South Dakota Class battleship, 35,000 tons standard displacement, 9 16 inch guns” and the Indianapolis (heavy cruiser, 10,000 tons, nine 8″ guns) I was going to call you on that fubar myself but RedGreen, bless him, beat me to it.  Just so you don’t look like quite as big a fool next time, battleships are named after states.  Cruisers are named after cities. In world war II usage, anyway.

              modern ships have blurred some of those distinctions.

              • mitchturb says:

                I am not a supporter of George Bush and for me to be a supporter of John McCain, doesn’t that show that Bush and McCain are completely different?

                Bush was hardly a true Republican with the way he spent like crazy and never controlled the budget.  McCain is different.

            • BlueCat says:

              No point whatsoever in debating with mitchturd, I mean “turb”.  He’s  either delusional and needs help or he just likes to get a reaction out of us and we shouldn’t give him the satisfaction.

        • Half Glass Full says:

          Serious straying from the talking points…

        • Cartesian Doubt says:

          Nixon had better approval numbers, and he was on the road to impeachment if he didn’t resign.

          If you wanted to poll Bush’s approval numbers now, you’d have to unclog the toilet first.

    • bob ewegen says:

      If you think the person who posted this poll, Hamilton Roberts, is a left winger!

      He’s a thoughtful and responsible poster, but very conservative.

    • Haners says:

      Yes, the majority of polsters who post here are huge liberals.  Usually a R vs. D poll the D’s usually win with the upper 60’s to lower 70’s.

      What is interesting is seeing whether that plays out the way it usually does, or if McCain does better here then Republicans usually do-and so far he has (see the last general election poll with Bob Schaffer).

      But usually it just gives us righties here something in the way of a measurement of how out numbered we are.

    • Half Glass Full says:

      Gee I wonder if I’ll get a reactionary Republican viewpoint? LOL,LOL,LOL

      REAL Friends Encourage Friends to THINK,

      Not Blindly Swallow a Party Line

      • cologeek says:

        sjwhatever won’t be here much longer, that type never sticks around too long.  Well ok, some do wear out their welcome faster than others.  FINE, FINE, most become annoying right off the bat OK!

        Seriously, if all you do is listen and converse with those you agree with, you have a much better chance of becoming radical when things don’t go your way.  Works out like that on both the left and the right.  This site is one of the ways I have of measuring how close to the cliff I may be coming.  Not that I agree with most of what you lefties are saying of course! 🙂

  5. RedGreen says:

    Why doesn’t Pols consider establishing a Brady-style waiting period for commenting under newly registered screen names? Liberals say it works for handguns. Wingers say it works for abortions. Can we all agree it might work for shills?

    • mitchturb says:

      I am sorry I criticized your immortal Obama and actually pointed out his misjudgment and imperfections…

      Obama is the greatest thing in the world.  I am devoting my life to his wonderous powers.

      Is that better?

      • redstateblues says:

        is that you’re obviously a shill when you say that he is “unelectable”. That is utter crap. I’m not saying he’s going to walk away with it, but maybe you should start living in reality.

      • Go Blue says:

        I don’t want to elect a geriatric who will shit his pampers when an emergency arise.  Get lost troll.

        I have a new found respect for Laughing Boy when compared to this asshole.

        • RedGreen says:

          is “Grampers.”

          But you’re right, even with advanced “Leak Guard” technology, there’s been a decidedly odd stench about McCain events recently.

          • bobster1 says:

            because the beatdown being issued to the McCain troll is marvelous, thorough, and comical.

            And I’m with Bob – people talk about Obama as an aspirational candidate, as someone they support because it says something good about the country. I also think Obama has the intestinal and intellectual fortitude to hire people who disagree with him and take their advice when facts warrent.  McCain doesn’t, and after 8 years of that I think we’re done.

        • bob ewegen says:

          What’s the difference between a troll and a shill?  I see mitchturd as a shill, admittedly among the dumbest of that not very bright genre.  How do you define a troll and what, if any, is the difference between a troll and a sock puppet or shill?

          • Go Blue says:

            Let’s find out shall we


            An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial and usually irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the intention of baiting other users into an emotional response[1] or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.

            Sock Puppet

            A sockpuppet is an online identity used for purposes of deception within an Internet community. In its earliest usage, a sockpuppet was a false identity through which a member of an Internet community speaks while pretending not to, like a puppeteer manipulating a hand puppet.[1]


            “Shill” can also be used pejoratively to describe a critic who appears either all-too-eager to heap glowing praise upon mediocre offerings, or who acts as an apologist for glaring flaws. In this sense, they would be an implicit “shill” for the industry at large, as their income is tied to its prosperity.

          • RedGreen says:

            But a sock puppet is an additional online identity a poster will create to defend or agree with the primary online persona. There was a scandal involving sock puppets on Amazon a year or two back, when it turned out authors were registering numerous accounts so they could favorably review their own books. As I recall, a reporter at The New Republic got caught favorably commenting on his or her own stories, and attacking detractors, a few years ago too. Those were sock puppets.

            A shill is a compensated commenter — not always paid money, but posters who work for or take direction from the entity they’re lauding or defending. The McCain web site that encourages volunteers to “weigh in” with McCain’s point of view on liberal blogs (including, according to the McCain site, Colorado Pols) in exchange for points toward McCain Gear is a good example. Campaign staffers who show up with arcane knowledge and complicated arguments defending their candidates or attacking opponents, while claiming to be members of the general public, are another. Also happens a LOT on technical sites where, say, a Dell PR worker will post “unbiased” reviews of new Dell products. There’s a whole shill industry out there.

            Trolls just cause trouble. The New York Times Magazine had a great article on trolls last weekend. They often ask faux naive questions, attempting to goad regular posters into falling for it. Their aim is to ridicule and disrupt. Not a lot of actual trolls here.

        • BlueCat says:

          Our old friend Laughing Boy may hold some very out there opinions but he is still connected to real world.

      • RedGreen says:

        to engage in a spirited debate here. But you should know, lately the discussion has been routinely disrupted by brand-new names that register, post a hundred comments that regurgitate their favorite smears, and then disappear forever. Oddly, it’s always McCain supporters, never Obama supporters, who do this. Let’s just call it a “cooling off period.”

        • mitchturb says:

          I am planning on partaking in many more debates and will not disappear anytime soon.

          • bob ewegen says:

            You tried an outrageous lie, got caught at it, and have been trying to lie your way out of it every since.  Please don’t pretend you are the equal of real posters on this board, of right or left.  

            • mitchturb says:

              The lie was….

              • bob ewegen says:

                You lied by claiming that obama’s great-uncle did not help liberate Buchenwald, then tried to cover your lie by claiming that it wasn’t a lie because Obama had referred to his great uncle the way everybody in a family refers to a great uncle, as uncle. You are a liar. You deliberately tried to deceive by arguing what the meaning of is is.

                • mitchturb says:

                  I never said that.  I said Obama’s uncle never liberated Auschwitz! Don’t make up facts because you don’t have an argument to stand on.  

                  • bob ewegen says:

                    You deliberately tried to deceive. That makes you a liar. You can’t weasel out of it by lying about the fact that you’re a liar.

                    You would be convicted of perjury in any court of law because you refuse to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

                    And that is why I don’t respect you, and nobody else does either.

                    • mitchturb says:

                      If I am a liar for saying the facts, Obama should be spending a life sentence for what he has said.

                      Is this a lie… Obama’s uncle never liberated Auschwitz (as I said before)?

                    • bob ewegen says:

                      You ARE a liar.

                    • mitchturb says:

                      So my statements are not lies but I am a liar because I like McCain?

                      Wonderful logic Bob…

                      No wonder the liberals lost the White House twice to somebody who they should have been able to beat with their eyes closed.

                    • Go Blue says:

                      and you’re not from Colorado. You’re a worthless troll.

                    • mitchturb says:

                      Actually, I live in Littleton.

                    • bob ewegen says:

                      and John McCain’s honorable candidacy is being embarrassed by the stupid lies you post. You’re a liar because you lie, a premise even your tiny brain should be able to grasp.

                    • mitchturb says:

                      I am a liar because I lie? Wonderful comeback.

                      Tell me how this statement is a lie: Obama’s uncle never liberated the Auschwitz concentration camp(as I said before)

                    • bob ewegen says:

                      never served in the military — a fact you knew to be a lie and were stupid enough to think that we wouldn’t find the truth.You lie, shill boy, and we caught you.

                      Now, you’re lying about your lie.

                    • mitchturb says:

                      This was my original statement:

                      “Too bad that only the Russians liberated those in Auschwitz and his uncle never was in World War II.”

                      His real uncle(s) never served in the military. Only his great uncle did.  I realize that many may call their great uncle their uncle so I take that back.  However, I did not lie.  His uncle did not serve in the military and his great uncle never liberated Auschwitz.

                    • bob ewegen says:

                      A square is also a rectangle and a great uncle is also an uncle. I am a grandfather and, by definition, also a father.

                      So when you said “his uncle never was in World War II.” you were either willfully ignorant or knowingly lying. But since you persisted in the claim AFTER I sent the link proving your claim was wrong, then you willfully lied, trying to quibble out of the lie by saying , now, that “I realize that many may call their great uncle their uncle so I take that back.”

                      Why take it back if it wasn’t a lie in the first place?  If you had said “Obama’s great uncle helped liberate Buchenwald, not Auschwitz, so he seems to have the same trouble with specific facts that McCain, who says Sunni when he means Shiite, does” you would have had a valid point.

                      But that wouldn’t have made you a shill, would it?

                      I’ll let you have the last word because absolutely no one on this board respects you.  You might try looking up the honor Code at West Point and see what it says about quibbling to cover a lie, little boy.


                    • BlueCat says:

                      Nobody cares that he had the name of the camp wrong as often happens with family stories we heard as kids.  The gist of Obama’s claim that his uncle helped liberate a camp is true.  The gist of what you are saying about it is ALL FALSE.  Now can we all please not respond to this shill anymore?

                    • Gray in the mountains says:

                      when I sent out wedding invitations in 1973. I was 23. I found out then that someone I had always called “uncle” was no relation whatsoever. I still call him uncle and so do my siblings.

  6. Aristotle says:

    Let’s hear it for this week’s wave-making troll, mitchturb! Move over sjintheknow.

  7. what tha duce says:

    Mitchturb brought up an interesting point in his original post about the economy. It’s an argument full of potential holes, but one worth discussing, yet the 100+ posts above consist of pathetic he-said/she-said bickering. Users often encourage a more conservative perspective throughout this blog, but when a person posts a decent argument (even if it’s just pasted from McCain’s website), it should be worth a decent conversation. Instead, we have a long thread full of personal insults and stupid assumptions.

    I’d like to hear from an Obama shill (sorry, if the shoe fits…) a decent response to:

    …the judgment of Obama to raise corn-based ethanol on a pedestal and claim it to be the most effective alternative fuel source available all the while every single analysis on the fuel claims that gasoline is more efficient for the environment and economy.  His judgment is what has allowed him to legislate billions of dollars in farm subsidies for the wealthy corporations that become reluctant to sell corn to the American people and instead put corn into ethanol production.  Ever wonder why the prices on milk, eggs, bread, and cheese are skyrocketing?

    • Go Blue says:

      Yes, please tell more Colorado and Mid-West farmers that MCain is against the Farm Bill!

      • mitchturb says:

        The subsidies that Obama has supported do not go to little Midwestern farmers but to HUGE corporate farms.  He urges the government to pay farmers to send their corn to ethanol plants that already pay farmers more than livestock farmers would for corn.  It is ridiculous to support this and no common farmer does.  The fact is ethanol is a sham and only the corporate farms are getting any money off of it as they rob it from you at the grocery store.

        Hey, isn’t ethanol supposed to LOWER gasoline prices instead of raise them?

        • DavidThi808 says:

          If you would post like this people will engage with you and take you seriously.

          • bob ewegen says:

            one of them may be Shakespeare’s Hamlet.

            Mitchturb is actually wrong about ethanol, and Obama is right, but at least Mitchturb  voiced an actual opinion this time instead of a deliberate lie.  Ethanol can be a significant, perhaps 5 to 10 percent, substitute for gasoline in our energy mix.  The current corn ethanol, however, is only a way to jump start an industry and a distribution chain of E-85 outlets. GM has 4 million dual fuel vehicles already on the road that will run on e-85. Our immediate step should be to drop the 54-cent a gallon tariff on Brazilian ethanol (from sugar cane) and redouble our efforts at cellulosic ethanol in the U.S. — making it from cornstalks instead of corn.  George W. Bush actually got this one, cellulosic ethanol, right. There is no single answer to the energy/global warming problem. There is a mosaic of answers, ranging from solar, wind, nuclear, cellulosic ethanol, pumped storage (to make solar and wind available when needed) conservation from the home and on the road, public transit, bike lanes, walking (I walk to work daily and thus our family car logs  less than 4,000 miles a year.

             I’d like to think clean coal (carbon free) can play a role and was delighted to see the story of  ConocoPhillips and the Colorado Center for Biorefining and Biofuels are putting $5 million into a research

            partnership to convert algae into oil, using carbon dioxide from power plants to make the algae grow.

             Ken salazar, to his credit, got the new farm bill to shift a little money from the dead end of corn-ethanol to the real hope of cellulosic. It’s a start, anyway.  

            And you know what–it even helps to inflate your tires properly.  

            • mitchturb says:

              I agree with you on a lot Bob!

              I agree we need to drop our tariff on Brazilian ethanol (McCain’s position as well).  I agree that cellulosic should be what we spend our money on (McCain position).  I am assuming you do not like the subsidies that Obama has supported through his entire Senate career.  I agree that all of that needs to be done and that corn-based ethanol was a jumping off point in alternative energy. However, corn-based ethanol started in the 1970s, I think it is time to get way beyond the jumping point by now!

              This ethanol used to be a Republican thing.  Bob Dole glorified it much in the same way as Obama does today.  Fortunately, if McCain becomes president, he won’t dwindle on spending billions on these ethanol subsidies for corporate farms and instead will spend that money on research and development of new technologies for fuel and for power.

              • bob ewegen says:

                corporate farms and family farms, I suggest you read Adam Smith and study the law of supply and demand.  A subsidy that increases demand for corn raises price for all corn, whether grown on corporate farm or family farm. So drop the faux populism when discussing farm policy, please. And you were dead wrong to say ordinary farmers don’t support the ethanol subsidy.

                I own a wheat farm in Phillips County that has been in our family since 1887. Thanks to the ethanol subsidy, which converted land from wheat to corn, thus reducing the supply of wheat, wheat prices are now about $7 a bushel. Until last year, I was lucky to get $2. My neighbors, most of whom are stout Republicans, regard the ethanol subsidy as handed down on Mount Sinai.

                I’m a farm bureau man myself, but even that supposedly Republican outfit (farmers union covers the Democrats) is stoutly behind the subsidy program.  

                I’m not surer what you meant by McCain “won’t dwindle”   Did you mean “won’t dawdle?”

                • mitchturb says:

                  I guess it is you versus the American people Bob.  On your side you have George Bush, Bob Dole, and Barack Obama.  For the American people are John McCain and Hillary Clinton.  You are so blessed by your ethanol subsidies which, as you said, drive up wheat, corn, and all other kinds of commodity prices.  In the state of our economy, I am glad you are laughing up your subsidies while the American people are shelling out more and more money for meat and dairy.

                  I know that most Republicans love the ethanol subsidies, that is why I find it odd that Obama loves them so much.  Can you say p-a-n-d-e-r-i-n-g? I guess it got him the Iowa Caucus.

                  • bob ewegen says:

                    Personally, I was a strong supporter of Reagan’s Freedom to Farm act, which was supposed to eliminate the subsidies. Didn’t happen. And nobody “laughs up” subsidies. Did you mean “lap up?”

                    And are you willing to admit how stupid you were to denounce “corporate farmers” as getting the benefits you said “family farmers ” didn’t get? That is what prompted me to try to tell you the facts of economnic life — hopeless, I admit, for a shill.

                    But I thought you might at least be able to understand supply and demand. Alas, you understand only the talking points your McCain handlers spoon feed you. Too bad they don’t give you spelling lessons at the same time.


        • Ray Springfield says:

          Ethanol and other bio fuels are part of a long term solution to alternative energy which will eventually replace fossil fuels.They aren’t designed to lower costs immediately. The only thing that would do that is a restriction on speculative trading, greater regulation of current oil companies, a stronger US dollar and a government that that doesn’t give away  5 trillion dollars to the wealthy.

          Oil companies don’t like the development of alternative energy because it shows a willingness to move away from the Enron and Exxon robber baron mentality that enslaves the middle class.

          • mitchturb says:

            Oil companies would love to get their hands on a new alternative energy source like the electric car.  They know that oil supplies are finite and that for their companies to stay afloat and profitable, they need to be the first company with the technology that millions of Americans and all those around the world are waiting for.

            For Obama to still be counting on corn-based ethanol is ridiculous.  I hope the second stage of this ‘long-term’ solution, as you put it, does not take half as long as the 40 years we have been fooling with ethanol for.

            • parsingreality says:

              ..after watching this food fight.

              Oil companies will not and have not been looking for alternative energies.  BP has done some effort, but as a percentage it’s pissing in the ocean.

              Big Oil controls a resource that is increasing in value almost every day.  The more the price goes up, the more money they make. About the year 2108 Exxon will get $500-$1000 a barrel for oil (inflation adjusted.) Oil’s use as a fuel may be well diminished by then, but it’s still a marvelous source of hydrocarbons to make into plastics and other things.

              The Rockefeller family tried to turn the tanker, to use an appropriate phrase at the last shareholder’s meeting.  It went nowhere.

              I will agree that they should be at the forefront of alternative energy, but they are unable to see the future.  The are OIL companies through and through.  

    • Haners says:

      Well said.

      Also, props to Mitchturb-agree with him or not, he’s been sticking with it all day so far.

      Way to go man

    • Froward69 says:

      Sorry it was the corn lobby (cooperate mega-farms) that pushed for corn use exclusively. when it is switch grass, that north America has enough acreage to grow enough fuel to replace gasoline. using about 1/3 the water as corn to produce. Obama had almost nothing to do with it. McCain on the other hand has his paws all over it.

      Back when Henry Ford was selling his model A’s one of the selling points was the farmer could distill his own fuel. at the time electric cars were not viable as America did not have the infrastructure to supply electricity to recharge those cars out in the countryside.

      now we do have the infrastructure for electric cars… and with Wind turbines that energy could be 1)free 2)no pollution.3) further away from the need to drill or import OIL

      BTW how many points do you get from mcSame for this hollow argument?

      • mitchturb says:

        Obama opposes? He has said on many many many occasions he believes in subsidies.  By the way who supported and voted for the latest $300 billion Farm Bill which included huge sums of subsidies to farmers for ethanol? Oh yes, Barack Obama. Who opposed? John McCain.

        I respect McCain because he does not lie in betweetn his teeth like Obama.  McCain knows corn-based ethanol is a lost cause and says it straight forward.  He went to Iowa (a state where 90% believe ethanol is good, regardless of the scientific studies and the actual impacts on the economy) and told them he would no longer allow subsidies for useless ethanol.  This cost him the caucus there and he got 4th place.  He would rather be straightforward with America than hide behind false hopes.

      • bob ewegen says:

        you’re right about electric cars, at least those like the upcoming Chevrolet volt which can use a small engine to recharge the batteries on long trips. The really neat thing about electrics is that you can use wind energy, produced mostly at night, to recharge those puppies in your garage overnight.  So it doesn’t matter that wind turbines typically only work 30 percent of the time — it puts the juice in the car when you need it. Of course, you could also park at work and let a solar panel on the top of the parking garage (like the one in Lakewood) recharge your car too.  

        A little further out, try this one for size: use windmills to make hydrogen through electalysis of water.   Then, use the hydrogen to power the fuel cell that runs your car. Okay, that’s down the road a bit.

        But if we can get electrics/ plug-in hybrids to be a big part of the mix, we can do a lot of neat things _ and tell hugo chavez to go suck eggs.

        • RedGreen says:

          and stop worrying how long we’ll have to occupy Iraq, stop sucking up to the Saudis and their medieval Kingdom, stop giving a human-rights pass to various former Soviet republics, and take ANWR and other American wilderness areas off the table for good.

        • parsingreality says:

          AFAIK, Bob, wind power does not depend on time of day, it’s pretty constant.

          But the fact that conventional fossil fuel and nuclear plants can charge cars at night is good for their bottom line.  More sales, same plant.  

          But in the big picture even a wind turbine making juice for a Volt or whatever at 3AM instead of waiting for someone to turn a light bulb on is good use of capital.  

  8. Danny the Red (hair) says:

    and look what I miss.

  9. bob ewegen says:

     “It is ridiculous to support this and no common farmer does.  The fact is ethanol is a sham and only the corporate farms are getting any money off of it as they rob it from you at the grocery store. ”

      He’s never actually met a common farmer.  When I pointed out that they do, ardently, support the subsidies, because it raises their profits too, the poor shill didn’t know what to say.

    • mitchturb says:

      When I pointed out that the American people are getting stuck with the bill for you to be able to live your life of luxury you refused to reply.  You do not think that corn-based ethanol is a sham? You must be one of the fools who believes your thoughts trump science.  I bet you believe that global warming is a hoax.  

      For you to say that all farmers love ethanol subsidies is wrong as well.  The fact is not every farmer is getting ethanol subsidies.  Mainly, and I said mainly, only the big huge corporations are getting the subsidies for billions of dollars to only produce corn for ethanol.  Let me ask you, how many people buy ethanol? Very very very little.  In fact, the entire ethanol industry has been bailed out by the government at least three times in the past few years because they pay so much for the corn and then they try and sell ethanol and it doesn’t sell!

      Corn-based Ethanol (which Bob loves) may be cheaper but it gets you 1/4 of the gas mileage of regular gasoline.  It is more hazardous for the environment because instead of Sulfur-Oxides, the fuel emits Nitrogen-Oxides.  Couple that with all of the toxins/pesticides that are put into the ground just by growing corn and you have one environmental disaster.  Economically, it is raising fuel prices by not being worth the billions that the government is putting into ethanol and not being a part of the solution of our gasoline woes.  Food prices are skyrocketing.  Ethanol can mess up ICE’s in cars horrendously.  Apparently, only Bob and the corporate farmers are loving all this ethanol that is scamming the country.  It is the corporate farm special interests that donate to Barack Obama’s campaigns for Senate and now President that make him a true supporter.

      • parsingreality says:’s a real mystery.

        EVERY corn farmer loves ethanol. The ones who grow it for ethanol and the ones who just ride along on the high price of corn headed for the feedlot.  

        It’s just my gut sense that tells me midwestern farmers are not corporate farms.  OK, OK, maybe as a legal structure for the farm, just like my folk’s home is in a trust. All those Billy Bob’s with their DeKaub caps, are they sharecroppers?  Of course not.

        Corporate farms are quite common in the central valley of California, however.  

        • mitchturb says:

          You may be right that the Corporate farms are not only in the Midwest.  However, I guarantee a lot of those small farmer are not receiving the subsidies.

          Here is a list of top subsidies Obama doled out in his support for the Farm Bill of 2007. Sickening isn’t it? You can’t tell me these are corporations getting the bulk of the subsidies.

          1 Balmoral Farming Partnership  $7,908,563

          2 Phillips Farm $5,893,194

          3 Due West $5,417,792

          4 Kelley Enterprises $4,933,845

          5 Walker Place $4,627,034

          6 R A Pickens & Son Company $4,307,636

          7 Dublin Farms $4,286,864

          8 Morgan Farms $4,192,828

          9 Perthshire Farms $4,161,420

          10 P G C Farms $4,157,017

          11 New Hope Farms $4,074,037

          12 Ritchey Bayou Farms $3,955,439

          13 Starrh & Starrh Ctn Grower $3,908,116

          14 Bruton Farms Partnership $3,817,756

          15 Killarney Farm Partnership $3,665,916

          16 Wabash Farms $3,646,130

          17 Condrey Farms  $3,569,029

          18 Pitts Farms $3,550,604

          19 Brooks Farms $3,543,231

          20 Talley Planting Co $3,435,444

        • divad says:

          …I can tell you that BigAg owns a sizable amount of the best corn growing land in the World.  And their percentage grows every year.  The family/small farmer is an endangered species.

          It’s not only the corn either, most pig lots are huge (and extremely smelly and polluting) corporate operations.  

          What do they feed the pigs?  Corn.  From the fields they own.  They own the processing plants too.  

          I can also tell you that whether big or little, they LOVE the federal dollars.  Who wouldn’t?  Somebody gives me money and I usually pretty happy about it.  They don’t see for what it is–welfare.  The government has been doing it so long, it is almost expected–an entitlement if you will.  

          In a business that is dependent on things outside it’s control (weather, pests and the like), if you’re a small farmer that little extra may be what keeps you afloat from one year to the next. If you’re BigAg, it’s just more padding for the bottom line.  

          It’s late and I’m tired or I would link to the listing of who got what in subsidies.  Lots of multi-millionaires on the dole.    

          • parsingreality says:

            mitchturb, the problem with your list is we don’t know what is family but with a corporate name, and what is Big Ag with distant boards of directors, etc.  Yes, the line between Farmer John and Big Ag is very blurred these days.

            So, serious question, who DOES the farming?  Are these corporations then hiring the locals to plow and harvest?  

            • divad says:

              …is cheap labor.  If that happens to be illegals, then so be it.  The cost is being caught is vastly outweighed by the contribution to the bottom line.  A prime example are the meat packing raids.

              Some “locals” are indeed hired to do the work, along with others willing to work cheap.

      • Ralphie says:

        Tell the truth.

        Are you getting McCain points for posting this crap?

        • bob ewegen says:

          and denouncing corporate America to advance his role as a shill for a right-wing presidential campaign. Interesting. Stupid, but interesting.

          Tell me, idiot, when are you going to mention Marx’s theory of commodity fetishism and tie that to Obama? Ohh, I guess that’s not on the talking points memo.

  10. sjintheknow says:

    Mitchturb, on this fourm you will be called names told you are stupid and called a shill.  Pay these Liberals no attention they can not help themselves, they are angry nasty losers.

    You will be called a shill even though you are just a person tired of all the lies, and half lies, and misinformation that these Liberals put out over this fourm.

    Keep at it keep telling the truth.  When you tell the truth these Liberals always end up by calling you names.  This is how I know they no longer can deal with truth.

    I was upfront and told these people I was here to tell the truth during the elections because I have a life.  Just because of this they called me a shill.  You see Liberals want to stop Free Speach.

    Welcome and I hope you stay at least during the election season.

    • mitchturb says:

      Thank you! Looks like we finally have some common sense.  I like how the only argument I get is name-calling.  Although I have to admit, Bob is really trying to make a clear argument, too bad it is for the corporate good rather than the American good.  

      • Danny the Red (hair) says:

        SJ is a racist moron.

        Not much of a character witness.

        As to the substance of Bob’s argument, as usual Bob’s argument is subtle and grounded in history and personal experinence.  You miss the subtlty or willfully ignore it.

        You can acknowledge an argment without accepting it: I often do this, Bob and I agree about half of the time.

        Ignorance is not a problem, obstinance is.  When you are forced to misreprent someone else’s  argument to win the point you are being bth.

        • mitchturb says:

          I do understand his point and I do not agree.  

          I do not understand how a person who says he has had a family farm for many many years in his family and then says he supported when Ronald Reagan tried to end farm subsidies but is now saying he loves subsidies. Was he against them before he was for them?

          • Danny the Red (hair) says:

            at the same time they are great for small farmers.

            He can seperate the 2.

            • mitchturb says:

              then I could agree.  I still do not think that all small farmers benefit from subsidies but many probably do.  If he does oppose subsidies then I am confused why he is defending them.

          • bob ewegen says:

            Just as you lied by saying “common” farmers hate them.  But then, lying is what you do for a living, isn’t it?  A lousy living, but hey, after they laid you off at the car wash, it was the only option open to you.

    • Ralphie says:

      None of that has to happen to Mitch.

      Don’t use your own personal experience as a guide.  That’s risky.  There’s a distinct possibility that you’ve been called stupid and a shill because you really ARE stupid and a shill.

      Somebody else’s mileage may vary.

    • RedGreen says:

      Some did, but most called you a moron. Get it right, sjinthedark.

  11. sjintheknow says:

    Well they keep telling me I am wrong, don’t understand, I make no point and I am just plain stupid.  But I am a mother and I understand children and adults who have been misled need understanding.

    The Liberals on this fourm are so Liberal they can not understand common sense and truth.

    Here is the good news there are a lot of people who look at this Fourm and now they will see the truth and see that these Liberals are wrong.

    I am surprised that the Liberals let Conservatives on this Fourm because the Truth always hurts the Liberals and their adgenda.   Free Speach to Liberals is only for Liberals.

    Keep at it Mitchturb.

  12. “Ridicule is the only rational response to unintelligible propositions”

    -Thomas Jefferson

    and it’s even more applicable in full context.

  13. Nate Peele says:

    Today’s Talking Points

    The Issue: Jobs for America

    John McCain has a comprehensive economic plan that will create millions of good American jobs, ensure our nation’s energy security, get the government’s budget and spending practices in order, and bring relief to American consumers. Click to learn how the McCain Economic Plan will help bring reform, prosperity and peace to America. Read More…

    The Issue: Partisanship

    There are serious issues at stake in this election, and serious differences between the candidates. And we will argue about them, as we should. But it should remain an argument among friends; each of us struggling to hear our conscience, and heed its demands; each of us, despite our differences, united in our great cause, and respectful of the goodness in each other. Read More…

    Hey you can earn points and win valuable prizes by posting John McCain’s talking points on blogs like this one.  Check it out at…  

  14. Underdelegate says:

    Bitchturd has just earned a free ride on the Straight Talking Points Express to his reserved seat at McCane’s RNC acceptance speech!  Oh, wait, I guess they didn’t tell him that there would be lots of empty seats anyway…

    • mitchturb says:

      Sorry but I don’t understand why if a person supports John McCain it has to be a ploy… he is neck and neck with Obama in national and many state polls which means there is just as many of you as there are of me.  

      Unforunately you have never bothered to look at the other side of the political specturm and seen what McCain has to offer.  No wonder you like Barack “Never reach across the aisle and always vote liberal” Obama.  There is a reason why he is the most liberal Senator in the Senate.  

      What America needs is a person who will work with Democrats, Republicans, AND Independents.  McCain has displayed this ability, Obama talks about it but has never bothered to show it.

      • Danny the Red (hair) says:

        even gave him money.

        I still get his mail to this day.

        I didn’t pay much attention to politics then,I was more concerned with my high power job.  I considered myself a social liberal/fiscal conservative and though a registered D voted for the occassional R.

        In 2000, I liked McCain’s moderate tone and desire to get religion out of politics, but I didn’t dig in too deep. After he lost to Bush, I voted for Gore because I saw what a scumbag Bush was, but I truthfully didn’t do much more than that because I was a passenger not a participant in the political process.  

        Then 9-11 happened.  People I knew died and I re-examined everything in my life, including my politics.  And yes I wanted to destroy al qaeda and if I could I would kill Bin Laden with my bare hands.

        In the summer in 2002, I remember being in Africa and people asking if we were really going to invade Iraq.  I said no way, strategicly stupid: Saddam is evil, but contained, it would strengthen Iran, remove a secular nationalist society, would be a propaganda coup for al qaeda, bog down our military in occupation duty, starve resources from other anti-al qaeda activities and destroy the unified global anti-terrorism coalition we were building.

        I said even if Bush is a moron there are plenty of smart experienced guys in government that would set him straight: guys like McCain.

        Then I find out McCain has been promoting the invasion of Iraq since 1998.  McCain went so far as to promote Iranian agent Ahmed Chalabi.  Little known fact is that the Iranians tricked John McCain and Bush into achieving Iranian strategic aims: destroy their enemy and replace him with a government friendly toward tehran.  Way to go experienced guys.

        By the winter of 2002 there were few voices talking about how stupid invading Iraq was, but there were a few, Mark Udall, Howard Dean and Obama, amongst them.  I gave money to anyone who opposed the war it was such a bad idea.  This pulled me back into politics.

        Then I looked at McCain. McCain appeared to have flipped on everything.  Truth is the guy has always been an opportunist not a maverick, trading on the celebrity his time as a POW gave him and using the money and connections of his new wife to elevate his status. McCain is scum.

      • redstateblues says:

        I thought republicans didn’t pay attention to polls? Also, you’re forgetting about the millions of college-aged people who do not have land lines and therefore do not participate in telephone polls. Add another 5-7% for Obama on any poll you see.  

        • mitchturb says:

          So all college students vote Obama?  

          • RedGreen says:

            Since that’s not remotely what redstateblues said, you know the answer to your moronic question.

            Read Danny’s post above for an example of a principled, impassioned and intelligent discussion. A McCain supporter could make a similar argument, but your cut-and-paste smears aren’t even close.

      • Underdelegate says:

        You may want to enquire about the legislation in the US Senate that clarified the term “natural born citizen” so that children born on overseas military bases could one day run for the presidency…. His initials are B. O.  How’s that for reaching across the aisle??

  15. Nate Peele says:

    The Issue: Partisanship

    There are serious issues at stake in this election, and serious differences between the candidates. And we will argue about them, as we should. But it should remain an argument among friends; each of us struggling to hear our conscience, and heed its demands; each of us, despite our differences, united in our great cause, and respectful of the goodness in each other. Read More…

    Hey you can earn points and win valuable prizes by posting John McCain’s talking points on blogs like this one.  Check it out at…  

  16. sjintheknow says:

    I am not Racists just because I believe Obama will not forget his upbringing!

    Please do not play the race card…we all know it comes down to Trust and the American People Do Not Trust Obama, on many levels.

    You pull the race card because you do not like the truth.  Let us face it most Republicans have No Balls and you Liberals are able to scare them.  Guess what there are a lot of us New Republicans Activists who are no longer afraid of the Liberal’s Name Calling.

    Get a Grip and try another avenue, Race Card will No Longer Work!

  17. newfnshow715 says:

    How could you vote for anyone but Mccain? His energy policy will get us more oil than Obama’s and besides, Mccain watches the wire just like you and I which shows he is like me.  

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account

You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.