Cafferty: ‘Straight Talk Express wimped out.’
Cafferty: ‘Straight Talk Express wimped out.’
This week, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) caved to the right wing and skipped a key vote on the economic stimulus plan, despite voicing prior support for the package. CNN’s Jack Cafferty excoriated McCain for placing his personal ambitions over the public’s well-being:
It was one of those moments that said quite a bit about somebody’s character. What did McCain do? Nothing. He ducked. Instead of representing the people in Arizona who elected him, he simply choice not to vote at all. John McCain, pilot of the Straight Talk Express, wimped out. [...]
This makes it looks a lot like John McCain wants to be president but he can’t bring himself to do the job of senator. Just another politician choosing to do what’s best for him.
Watch it:
It was one of those moments that said quite a bit about somebody’s character,” Cafferty said. “John McCain didn’t have the stomach for the tough decision.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Dayum! McCain got served!
Sorry, my wife wanted to watch that idiotic movie an hour ago.
February 8th, 2008 at 2:00 pmHow much airplay will this get? Usually, Cafferty is the only one who runs with things like this and then it dies a quiet death.
February 8th, 2008 at 2:02 pmJack might want to read his comapny’s own Web site.
McCain did indeed vote for the stimulus package that passed the Senate 81-16 yesterday:
“All the remaining major presidential candidates serving in Congress favored the bill. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., voted for the bill. Sens. Barack Obama, D- Ill., and Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., were campaigning and did not vote on final passage, although both voted in favor of the larger stimulus plan that was defeated Thursday.”
http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/djhighlights/200802080055DOWJONESDJONLINE000023.htm
How embarrassing for Jack.
February 8th, 2008 at 2:03 pmIt is reported that McCain was delayed in the airport
bathroom.
February 8th, 2008 at 2:06 pmIf McCain cannot face a politically sensitive vote, how can he face Al Queda?
February 8th, 2008 at 2:11 pmComment by Exley — February 8, 2008 @ 2:03 pm
February 8th, 2008 at 2:11 pmHey Excrement
The version of the bill Cafferty is talking about was voted on YESTERDAY , and which McInsane did indeed dodge ; how embarrassing for you , dope ……….
Uh oh, Jack dissed McCain (R-ahrah). By the way, typo alert:
“he simply choice not to vote at all.”
February 8th, 2008 at 2:12 pmi can’t wait to see all the other dignity-free things mccain’s going to do to get repub insiders to like him. get your popcorn ready, t.o.
February 8th, 2008 at 2:12 pmIt’s not embarrassing for Jack at all because he was in fact referring to the vote before that that McCain has said he would show up and vote for .. and that vote would have prevented the Repiglicans for yet another blocking of that vote. AT that time there were 59 votes lined up to support that original amendment .. and McCain’s vote would have made it pass. This is what Cafferty was referring too. Meanwhile the corporate media continues to lie for McCain because they want him installed as president so that all the millionaire journalists can sustain their greed.
February 8th, 2008 at 2:14 pmI am sure that Jack will today excoriate Hillary and Obama for missing the vote that passed the stimulus package….Y’know — The one that Sen. McCain voted for.
February 8th, 2008 at 2:14 pmhopefully, mccain’s decision to not vote will inspire millions of repubs to do the same.
February 8th, 2008 at 2:14 pm#3 – Exley, you’ve gor your stories crossed:
“The tally was 58-41 to end debate on the Senate measure, just short of the 60 votes Democrats would have needed to scale procedural hurdles and move the bill to a final vote.”
“Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois flew to Washington for the vote. GOP front-runner John McCain of Arizona did not vote.”
http://money.cnn.com/2008/02/06/news/economy/stimulus_senate.ap/?postversion=2008020619
February 8th, 2008 at 2:16 pmI am sure that Jack will today excoriate Hillary and Obama for missing the vote that passed the stimulus package….Y’know — The one that Sen. McCain voted for.
Comment by Exley — February 8, 2008 @ 2:14 pm
February 8th, 2008 at 2:16 pmLike the one you lyingly claimed he made yesterday , which would have passed an even broader economic package ?
#10 – You mean the one that McCain missed?
“Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois flew to Washington for the vote. GOP front-runner John McCain of Arizona did not vote.â€
http://money.cnn.com/ 2008/ 02/ 06/ news/ economy/ stimulus_senate.ap/ ?postversion=2008020619
February 8th, 2008 at 2:16 pmStormskies….McCain’s vote against the orginal pork-laden bill would have made no difference. The bill needed votes in order to proceed through the Senate. Thus, McCain’s lack of attendance at the vote had no effect on the failure of the bill to pass since he was not going to vote for it anyway. That is something that Cafferty (and MCMetal) fails to grasp….
February 8th, 2008 at 2:18 pmre 10: Yeah that’s equivilant, McCain dodges a vote that would make a difference is equal to Obama and Hillary missing a vote that’s going to pass regardless. It’s equivilent the same way that bush being an AWOL coward equals Kerry earning a silver star for bravery in battle….idiot.
February 8th, 2008 at 2:19 pmExcrement = another GOP/Chimpy leg humper and Hooked On Phonics/reading and comprehension challenged twit …………
February 8th, 2008 at 2:19 pmThus, McCain’s lack of attendance at the vote had no effect on the failure of the bill to pass since he was not going to vote for it anyway.
but he didn’t have the guts to vote against it. period. he cut and ran, typical republican.
February 8th, 2008 at 2:20 pm“This makes it looks a lot like John McCain wants to be president but he can’t bring himself to do the job of senator.”
Brilliant. Turning that around, I await Fox News asking McCain, “If you can’t stand up for something as senator, why should we believe you’ll do it when you’re president?”
Perhaps Rove will ask.
February 8th, 2008 at 2:20 pmStormskies….McCain’s vote against the orginal pork-laden bill would have made no difference. The bill needed votes in order to proceed through the Senate. Thus, McCain’s lack of attendance at the vote had no effect on the failure of the bill to pass since he was not going to vote for it anyway. That is something that Cafferty (and MCMetal) fails to grasp….
Comment by Exley — February 8, 2008 @ 2:18 pm
Really , Excrement ?
This week, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) caved to the right wing and skipped a key vote on the economic stimulus plan, despite voicing prior support for the package.
So , who’s actually failing to grasp the matter at hand ?
February 8th, 2008 at 2:21 pm#15 – “McCain’s vote against the orginal pork-laden bill would have made no difference.” Comment by Exley — February 8, 2008 @ 2:18 pm
Except for the fact that he originally was FOR the bill before he was AGAINST it, as you assert.
Thus proving that Sen. McCain is the flip-flopping candidate extrodinaire!
February 8th, 2008 at 2:21 pmI absolutely agree. He sould have marched straight in and voted NO like any smart congressman should.
February 8th, 2008 at 2:24 pmExley: you should go find your giant tube of Preparation H and put it on what you call your ‘head’ … that would solve your and everyone else’s problem ……..
February 8th, 2008 at 2:24 pmDemocrat Soldier, Like MCMetal and Cafferty you are missing the point — The original bill, which the Democrats quickly abandoned, needed 60 votes to proceed. Thus, McCain’s absence from the vote on the original bill, did not affect its failure to pass since he was not going to vote for its passage in any case.
After the Democrats retreated and allowed consideration of a fiscally responsible bill, McCain was present and voted in favor of the legislation, whereas Clinton and Obama were absent.
February 8th, 2008 at 2:24 pmabsolutely agree. He sould have marched straight in and voted NO like any smart congressman should.
Comment by Roger_Roger
Except that he’s a senator…
February 8th, 2008 at 2:25 pmThe original bill, which the Democrats quickly abandoned, needed 60 votes to proceed. Thus, McCain’s absence from the vote on the original bill, did not affect its failure to pass since he was not going to vote for its passage in any case.
If wasn’t going to vote for it then why was he supporting it? Is this one of those repbulican koen riddles, like we have to destroy the village to save it?
February 8th, 2008 at 2:28 pm#21 “Except for the fact that he originally was FOR the bill before he was AGAINST it, as you assert.”
You are incorrect. McCain was FOR the bill before the Democrats started trying to add on billions in additional expenditures. Thus, the bill that the Democrats failed to pass on Wednesday was NOT the bill McCain originally supported.
Once the Democrats were defeated and returned the bill to its original form — the form McCain supported — he voted for it.
February 8th, 2008 at 2:29 pmYay for Jack. All 10 people who watch his 60 second spot on CNN will no doubt have this issue uppermost in their minds when they vote 7 months from now, 4 months after getting their rebate check. Next.
February 8th, 2008 at 2:29 pmDemocrat Soldier, Like MCMetal and Cafferty you are missing the point — The original bill, which the Democrats quickly abandoned, needed 60 votes to proceed. Thus, McCain’s absence from the vote on the original bill, did not affect its failure to pass since he was not going to vote for its passage in any case.
Comment by Exley — February 8, 2008 @ 2:24 pm
According to whom ?
You ?
A Chimpy nut hugging sycophant ?
I already posted where it specifically states above that McInsane was “voicing prior support for the package” ; where is your evidence to the contrary ?
Your “word” ?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
That’s almost as believable as Chimpy’s assessment of Dickhead Cheney’s Vice Presidency…………
February 8th, 2008 at 2:30 pmre 27: follow the links in the story exley, and quit lying.
February 8th, 2008 at 2:30 pm#21 “Except for the fact that he originally was FOR the bill before he was AGAINST it, as you assert.â€
You are incorrect. McCain was FOR the bill before the Democrats started trying to add on billions in additional expenditures. Thus, the bill that the Democrats failed to pass on Wednesday was NOT the bill McCain originally supported.
Once the Democrats were defeated and returned the bill to its original form — the form McCain supported — he voted for it.
Comment by Exley — February 8, 2008 @ 2:29 pm
Again , based upon what proof ?
A claim made by your sorry , stupid ass ?
ROFLMAO ………..Get a clue
February 8th, 2008 at 2:31 pmStormskies….McCain’s vote against the orginal pork-laden bill would have made no difference. The bill needed votes in order to proceed through the Senate. Thus, McCain’s lack of attendance at the vote had no effect on the failure of the bill to pass since he was not going to vote for it anyway. That is something that Cafferty (and MCMetal) fails to grasp….
Comment by Exley — February 8, 2008 @ 2:18 pm
No Exley – IF the cloture vote had been successful (60 votes in favor of closing debate and moving forward on the vote), the bill would have PASSED because a supermajority of 60 votes is NOT needed to pass the bill….only a simple majority. And McCain HAD stated that he WOULD support the more expansive Senate bill, not the House version that was eventually adopted, with limited amendments.
February 8th, 2008 at 2:36 pmFrom a “parliamentary procedures” point of view, an abstention (on non-vote) is essentially considered a vote for the prevailing side. Subsequently, it is technically incorrect to regard those who do not vote as taking a neutral position on the issue. Their non-vote (abstention) should be considered a vote for the side that won. That’s the official word from Robert’s Rules of Order, the “Bible” on parliamentary procedure.
February 8th, 2008 at 2:45 pmStraight-talk express? More like ALL the tires came off & wrecked in the ditch.
February 8th, 2008 at 2:46 pmMaybe by straight talk he means that it’s just straight talk, no action, my friends….oh did i tell you we need to stay in iraq until the rapture comes? and if you die in the republican jihad, you go to heaven and get 72 bathroom stalls to prowl.
February 8th, 2008 at 2:48 pm“And McCain HAD stated that he WOULD support the more expansive Senate bill”
impeachcheneythenbush — February 8, 2008 @ 2:36 pm
ICTB, if that is true, then I will stand corrected. To my knowledge, McCain did not say he would support the version of the bill — with all the exta add-ons — that was defeated Wednesday night.
If there is clear evidence that he said he would support that specific bill, then I will gladly acknowledge my error.
February 8th, 2008 at 2:52 pmYeah, we need a president who’d rather abstain from making the tough call then have the guts to actually stand up for what he (or she) believes in.
The fact of the matter is that McCain decided that it was politically expedient to miss the vote rather than have to explain why he voted NO or voted YES.
That’s the issue.
February 8th, 2008 at 2:52 pmRight wing tool Exley, as usual, gets his facts wrong. McCain did fail to show up to vote to override the Republiscums filibuster of the original bill that contained home heating help for the poor and elderly and extended unemployment benefits for the people out there who cant find a job. That vote failed, because John McCain didnt show up.
He did vote, later, for the pared down stimulus bill that had the home heating and unemployment extension versions stripped out. Hopefully the Democratic nominee for President runs an ad pointing out that McCain stopped the vote on the bill with home heating and unemployment benefits, thereby causing those people to lose any possible help from the Federal government.
February 8th, 2008 at 2:55 pmImpeachcheneythenbush….
It appears that I was indeed correct. McCain did express support for the stimulus package as long as it was a clean bill without extra pork and earmarks…..The bill that was defeated on Wednesday had billions of extra expenditures and add-ons that were not part of the initial legislation.
Here is what McCain said prior to Wednesday’s vote:
“First thing we gotta do is pass the stimulus package through the Senate, not load it up with a bunch of pork-barrel earmark projects. And get it through the Senate, and get that stimulus to our economy going so people can regain confidence. […] First thing we have to do is pass the stimulus package through the Senate. Don’t load it up with a bunch of pork-barrel projects. Have the President sign it, and let’s start moving forward.”
As we see, once the bill was stripped of the add-ons and extra expenditures, McCain voted in favor as he said he would.
February 8th, 2008 at 2:57 pmPlease….Excrement and Wronger_Wronger are trying to have a completely fact-free debate. Maybe they should get a room.
February 8th, 2008 at 3:00 pmMore on the fact that McCain’s absence from the vote on Wednesday made absolutely no difference since he would have voted “no” any way:
From ABC News
McCain campaign spokeswoman Jill Hazelbaker says McCain would have voted “No.” He supports the version negotiated by President Bush and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., not the Senate Democrats’ version.
And that means that factually, as a matter of Senate substance, his absence doesn’t matter. Those seeking to achieve cloture need to reach 60 votes — the onus is on them. In that case, an opponent of cloture can vote No, or he can skip the vote. So the Democrats’ implication that his presence would have changed the outcome doesn’t appear to be true.’
Jake Tapper.
Case closed. As I said, Cafferty really needs to do better research.
February 8th, 2008 at 3:06 pm#24 – “Thus, McCain’s absence from the vote on the original bill, did not affect its failure to pass since he was not going to vote for its passage in any case. ” Comment by Exley — February 8, 2008 @ 2:24 pm
Except for the fact that he WAS going to vote for the Democratic Bill, and then flipped&flopped and didn’t!
February 8th, 2008 at 3:07 pm“First thing we gotta do is pass the stimulus package through the Senate, not load it up with a bunch of pork-barrel earmark projects. And get it through the Senate, and get that stimulus to our economy going so people can regain confidence. […] First thing we have to do is pass the stimulus package through the Senate. Don’t load it up with a bunch of pork-barrel projects. Have the President sign it, and let’s start moving forward.â€
As we see, once the bill was stripped of the add-ons and extra expenditures, McCain voted in favor as he said he would.
Comment by Exley — February 8, 2008 @ 2:57 pm
Well, if extending unemployment benefits and helping very low-income people pay for their heating bills is considered “pork,” then you would be correct. However, most of the economists said it is these very measures that would have actually have a stimulus on the economy…not small rebates handed out on a one-time basis. Secondly, I will agree that there were two areas that shouldn’t have been included in the economic stimulus bill…tax breaks for alternative fuels (should be in another bill..and not targeted toward corn ethanol) and tax subsidies for coal (even “Clean” cloal is NOT clean).
February 8th, 2008 at 3:08 pmLooks like Straight Talk Express lost some wheels along the way.
February 8th, 2008 at 3:08 pmStormskies….McCain’s vote against the orginal pork-laden bill would have made no difference. The bill needed votes in order to proceed through the Senate. Thus, McCain’s lack of attendance at the vote had no effect on the failure of the bill to pass since he was not going to vote for it anyway. That is something that Cafferty (and MCMetal) fails to grasp….
Comment by Exley
It’s interesting to note that the fool tool troll Exley thinks that helping the poor and elderly with their home heating oil and people who have been unable to find a job before their jobless benefits ran out is pork. How very compassionate of him.
As for what bill McCain said he would vote for, it had to be the original bill with those two provisions in it because that was the only bill up for a vote when McCain made his promise. The bill that passed was a bill that was created as a compromise after McCain neglected to follow-through on his original promise.
No the kind of person I want as my President. Too much like Bush.
February 8th, 2008 at 3:11 pm#43, impeachcheneythenbush,
You seem to be the only one on ThinkProgress (other than me) who took the time to read the news coverage of the defeat of the Democrats’ bill on Wednesday and knows that the Democrats’ bill contained a number of tax breaks for coal companies….Well done.
It was amusing to read all these people who rail against the coal industry on other threads supporting a bill that gave tax breaks to the coal industry.
February 8th, 2008 at 3:11 pmAnd Ex-lax quotes Jake Tapper to “prove” that McCain “would have voted “NO”.
Of course, the fact that he was spared having to actually cast a vote by, y’know, not showing up, is The Story.
McCain did not have the courage of his conviction to actually vote no. He skipped it and left it to the rest of the obstructionist Republicans to cover his a$$.
THAT’s the point.
February 8th, 2008 at 3:12 pmSupposed “straight talk” from Sen. “Flip Flop” McCaine:
‘Asked Wednesday morning to comment on the pending vote, McCain talked about the need to pass a stimulus measure quickly.”
“Supporters needed 60 votes to prevail. Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid had voted in favor, but switched it at the last moment in a parliamentary move that allows him to bring up the measure for another vote at a later date.”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080207/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_tough_vote
Had Sen. McCain stood by his original support for the Democratic Plan, it would have passed.
February 8th, 2008 at 3:12 pmAs we see, once the bill was stripped of the add-ons and extra expenditures, McCain voted in favor as he said he would.
Comment by Exley
Home heating assistance and unemployment assistance WERE NOT add-ons to the bill. They were in the original bill.
Fool tool troll Exley, as usual, is full of $hit!
February 8th, 2008 at 3:14 pm#47 Ralph, Read what I sent again…..McCain, through his spokesman, did go on the record and say that McCain would have voted against the Senate Democrats’ version on the bill….He is on the record as having opposed the bill….He cannot later claim that he would have voted for it.
February 8th, 2008 at 3:16 pmYou seem to be the only one on ThinkProgress (other than me) who took the time to read the news coverage of the defeat of the Democrats’ bill on Wednesday and knows that the Democrats’ bill contained a number of tax breaks for coal companies….Well done.
It was amusing to read all these people who rail against the coal industry on other threads supporting a bill that gave tax breaks to the coal industry.
Comment by Exley
Fool Tool Troll Exley actually thinks that it was the Democrats who put the tax breaks for the coal industry in the bill? What an a$$. He hasn’t a clue what he is talking about. He also thinks that we were supporting the bill with the coal subsidies because of the coal subsidies. He’s way too stupid to know that we supported the original bill because it helped the poor, elderly and jobless.
February 8th, 2008 at 3:19 pm#49 Bilbo is, as usual, mistaken:
“But it bogged down in the closely divided Senate, where Democrats were determined to exact a political price from Republicans by forcing them into tough votes on whether to add popular items such as $14.5 billion in jobless aid for those whose unemployment benefits have run out, $1 billion in heating aid for the poor and tax breaks for energy companies, including coal producers.”
Read that slowly, Bilbo….”to add.”
Plus, it amuses me that Bilbo no longer opposes “tax breaks for energy companies, including coal producers.”
February 8th, 2008 at 3:19 pmMcCain did not have the courage of his conviction to actually vote no. He skipped it and left it to the rest of the obstructionist Republicans to cover his a$$.
THAT’s the point.
Comment by ralph the wonder llama
Ralph, exley keeps ignoring this point. It’s been made by several posters. He thinks that if he keeps ignoring it, it will go away. it won’t.
February 8th, 2008 at 3:21 pm#47 Ralph, Read what I sent again…..McCain, through his spokesman, did go on the record and say that McCain would have voted against the Senate Democrats’ version on the bill….He is on the record as having opposed the bill….He cannot later claim that he would have voted for it.
Comment by Exley
Fool Tool Troll Exley thinks that saying you would have voted against a bill is the same thing as actually voting against it. Again, what an a$$ he is. There is a very big difference. If McCain actually would have voted against the bill, then why didn’t he do it? That’s what Senators are supposed to do, didn’t you know that idiot Exley. Did you also know that McCain has only made 57% of the votes in the 110th Congress. What a wonderful voting record he has. He’s going to have a very hard time defending that voting record while on the campaign trail.
February 8th, 2008 at 3:21 pmRead that slowly, Bilbo….â€to add.â€
Plus, it amuses me that Bilbo no longer opposes “tax breaks for energy companies, including coal producers.â€
Comment by Exley
Fool Tool Exley is too stupid to understand that many of us here could have lived with tax breaks for energy companies, including coal producers, if it would mean that the poor, elderly and people without jobs would get some assistance. Again, what an a$$ he is.
February 8th, 2008 at 3:24 pm#49 Bilbo is, as usual, mistaken:
“But it bogged down in the closely divided Senate, where Democrats were determined to exact a political price from Republicans by forcing them into tough votes on whether to add popular items such as $14.5 billion in jobless aid for those whose unemployment benefits have run out, $1 billion in heating aid for the poor and tax breaks for energy companies, including coal producers.â€
Comment by Exley
As usual Fool Tool Exley is wrong. He needs to point out where in what he quoted it says that the tax breaks for energy companies and coal producers were put in the bill by Democrats. All that says is that the democrats were forcing them to choose whether or not to vote for them. By voting against the bill with the jobless and home heating aid, they voted against tax breaks THAT THEY WANTED TO BE IN THE BILL.
Fool Tool Exley is too stupid for words. I will no longer talk about him because it is obvious that he is incapable of recognizing or telling the truth.
February 8th, 2008 at 3:27 pmBilbo, I can tell you are embarrassed that you did not know that the Democrats’ version of the bill contained tax breaks for coal companies.
The only way you can avoid such embarrassment in the future is to actually read the news coverage of the events about which you seek to comment. Ignorance is not always bliss, Bilbo, as your embarrassment here clearly demonstrates.
February 8th, 2008 at 3:30 pmSo, let’s sum up…Cafferty got his facts wrong….Bilbo did not even know what was in the bill he claims to have supported…McCain’s absence on Wednesday made absolutely no difference because, as he is on the record as saying, he would have voted no anyway…McCain did indeed vote for the version of the bill he said he would originally support….The stimulus bill passed with McCain’s support and Obama and Clinton missing the vote.
February 8th, 2008 at 3:30 pmWhimpy McBush’s new campaign slogan: The Whimp-Out Express.
February 8th, 2008 at 3:38 pmWhat you have when you take Ex Lax on a Friday?…
-Bush claiming Cheney the best VP ever…even over his own Father
-Blackwater trying to negotiate the price of dead Iraqi children
-Rove getting $40K, enough to feed 40,000 hungry Iraqi children a yr.
-Sen. McBomb hiding out to not vote…what a President!
-Discovery channel looking for it’s balls
-Think Condi for VP. But, but, would she be as good as Cheney?
-346 days…
February 8th, 2008 at 3:39 pmnice to see exley’s ability to pop in and be a giant hairsplitting distraction hasn’t waned.
whether or not the thread is trashed with pedantry, people know, exley, that mccain is no more principled than the commonest of political hacks – we call that “the big picture”, and it holds up no matter how any given hair is split.
February 8th, 2008 at 3:39 pmTombaker,
I don’t believe that you can call totally discrediting the topic of the thread via a careful and unassailable recitation of facts to be a “hairsplitting distraction.”
Cafferty was wrong. The TP write-up was wrong. And the majority of the posters were wrong.
And I was, again, correct.
February 8th, 2008 at 3:44 pmTP, Ex Lax on a Friday can be a very bad thing.
February 8th, 2008 at 3:45 pm“that mccain is no more principled than the commonest of political hacks”
bingo. he’s jumped through every hoop he’s been asked to.
February 8th, 2008 at 3:47 pmAnd I was, again, correct.
Comment by Exley — February 8, 2008 @ 3:44 pm
February 8th, 2008 at 3:51 pmClaims the brainless Chimpy sycophant , whose moronic would-be deity has gone 0-for-7-years with incorrect (intentionally dishonest) statements and predictions ……..
ex- absolutely no one cares. k?
February 8th, 2008 at 3:51 pm#66, Tom,
If you are saying that no one besides me cares about the facts, then I would agree with you for the most part (But there are a few people here who undoubtedly do care and see that I am undeniably correct in this instance)
February 8th, 2008 at 3:56 pm#66, Tom,
If you are saying that no one besides me cares about the facts, then I would agree with you for the most part (But there are a few people here who undoubtedly do care and see that I am undeniably correct in this instance)
Comment by Exley — February 8, 2008 @ 3:56 pm
Like you were about voting for Chimpy twice and apologizing/excuse making for his godawful presidency ?
Yeah , you certainly have a consistent track record , skid mark……
February 8th, 2008 at 3:58 pmi’m saying no one cares whether you think you’re right or whether you think you’ve debunked something. the meme is out there – mccain is as cynical and opportunistic a flip-flopper as has ever gone to DC, and that’s what you should expect to hear about him, true or otherwise, from now til November.
these little objections of yours are futile, but you’re welcome to split away. funny – usually someone is told to “go pound sand” as a tell-off, but you’re pounding it voluntarily, which is amusing, in an obtuse way….
have at it.
February 8th, 2008 at 4:09 pmTom,
It is not a matter of me “thinking” I’m right. The facts prove empirically that I am undeniably correct.
February 8th, 2008 at 4:15 pmThus, McCain’s lack of attendance at the vote had no effect on the failure of the bill to pass since he was not going to vote for it anyway. That is something that Cafferty (and MCMetal) fails to grasp….
Comment by Exley — February 8, 2008 @ 2:18 pm
they grasped his outright lie, though. mcCain is a liar, that’s a fact.
The facts prove empirically that I am undeniably correct.
Comment by Exley — February 8, 2008 @ 4:15 pm
Actually, they prove that you don’t understand what you read.
February 8th, 2008 at 4:21 pmAnd I was, again, correct.
Comment by Exley — February 8, 2008 @ 3:44 pm
You were, and are, wrong. on the facts.
February 8th, 2008 at 4:22 pmMcCain lies, and exley swears by it. Typical repigs, fact and consciense-free.
February 8th, 2008 at 4:24 pmTom,
It is not a matter of me “thinking†I’m right. The facts prove empirically that I am undeniably correct.
Comment by Exley — February 8, 2008 @ 4:15 pm
February 8th, 2008 at 4:30 pmOnly according to you ; a Chimpy rim licking apologist.
This will come back to haunt McCain because it shows that his claim to be a strong leader is situational. It also calls into question what his core principles are as they too seem to be situational.
This, and the picture of McCain giving Bush a bear hug, will be played over and over and over again.
I love it!
February 8th, 2008 at 5:22 pmWOW. McCain didn’t vote, and Oprahbama actually did?! …and not just ‘present’?!
February 8th, 2008 at 7:12 pm