Cheers,

Bobwurst Says:
March 24th, 2008 at 9:48 pm

Re Thirdparty:

So we should elect mcrazy because even though he’s the same as bush, the furriners think he’s different? That’s french talk pal, and we don’t cotton to no french talk round here. Now if you was to assert, (that means say, it don’t mean your ass hurts, although it might,) that bin laden wanted the dems to win, then I could agree that we ought to alect mccrazy.

Actually, it’s somewhat the reverse. We should elect him because he is different from Bush, despite the fact that many on the left think they’re the same!

And no, I won’t assert that bin Laden wants the Dems to win. I have no idea what he wants. It’s a very complicated question that I think requires some deep thought. Yes, bin Laden is pleased that the US is bogged down in Iraq, but he would also be pleased if the US withdrew so he could claim victory and the offshoot organization, al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, could use Anbar as a base. That may be what he’s thinking. Frankly, I think bin Laden would have wanted Ron Paul, though — Paul would have caved into every one of his demands!

So we should elect mcrazy because even though he’s the same as bush, the furriners think he’s different? That’s french talk pal, and we don’t cotton to no french talk round here. Now if you was to assert, (that means say, it don’t mean your ass hurts, although it might,) that bin laden wanted the dems to win, then I could agree that we ought to alect mccrazy.

Hah, seriously, I’m about to say something you won’t like, and seeing as I have 2 minutes of battery life left on my computer, I’m going to make it quick and come back later.

If you read McCain’ Financial Times op-ed, you might get the impression I got – that he, unlike Bush, will actually be able to improve our image globally. People see him as a third Bush term here at home, but it’ll be different abroad. That is, of course, assuming he follows through on promises to act on global warming, close Guantanamo Bay, etc. Like Nixon going to China, McCain will have the credibility to do those things with minimal political damage. I honestly think that Obama closing Gitmo would do him much more political harm (cuz the far right will tear him down – unfair, but that’s reality) than it will do McCain.

We Dems better think of one hellava strategy to counteract this, or our candidate will be made to lose. Many voters only get their “facts” off of the tube, not blogs or dead tree newspapers, mags, etc.

Are you getting all your friends in CDA to vote for Obama?

I am waiting for him to get the nomination first – most of my friends are not political, so they aren’t even paying attention. My across the street neighbor is running for County Commisioner, though – as a Democrat – so I am going to be active come election time.

No matter what McCaIn says or does or what comes out about him, about the war, the economy etc., etc., it will be hidden or glossed over or explained away repeatedly until the coverups become generally accepted truth.

My recurring nightmare: St. John, by virtue of being anointed by MSM as next Pres., is elected & we are left watching our hopes for foreign & domestic policy change evaporate in our hands.

Matthews seems to love Bush for some reason. He is starting to sound really bi-polar. He says one thing one day and the opposite the next day.

Cheeseheadliberal Says:
March 24th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
I know I will get grief for this, but I have to say I like Mathews most of the time. I don’t agree with that statement of course, but he also didn’t say we definitely SHOULD vote for McCain. He throws things out like that quite often as points of discussion. I’d have to say it’s pretty obvious if you watch him regularly that he is pretty enamored with Obama. He does seem to be a little too in love with politics itself.

The only sense I can make of this is it is his attempt at being even-handed. He is so flagrantly against Hillary and for Obama – and who can blame him – but he does not want to appear partisan. And it is true, he does have a man-crush on McCain, but the thrill up his leg means he is an Obama man.

Making insane and idiotic statements makes one seem non-partisan ?

Well , if anyone would know about that , it would certainly be you ……………

To which I add, see my humble above full transcript and deconstruction (@56) mr. Cheesehead.

John McCuster?

Expect our Iraqi allies to say “what do you mean we, white man?”

–Smells–

LOL!

“I never forget my favorite movie Laurence of Arabia…”

–the Cliff Notes/Middle East Conflict for Dummies, but with moving pictures and Peter O’ Toole!—

“…the Turks—rather, the Arabs, wanted the Turks to stay in Arabia so they could keep blowing up their trains and make them their enemy…”

—Exactly! What better way to keep an occupying force…umm…occupying, than by blowing up their trains! That’s what the French Resistance did in WWII—they WANTED the Germans to stay, and they’d have gotten away with it if it weren’t for those meddling British and Americans!—

“…they wanted them to rebuild….”

–Is Chris absolutely sure that his favorite movie and well of wisdom about the Middle East is Laurence of Arabia? Because I don’t recall Omar Sharif or Anthony Quinn discussing the benefits of Turkish engineering the way that the People Popular Liberation Front discussed the benefits of Roman occupation or construction in Life of Brian—maybe Chris is thinking of that movie instead?—

“they want us to constantly rebuild and reinforce and surge because they continually use us as the poster child for what’s wrong with the west…”

— but probably without the concomitant un-building—

“..it looks to the Arabs like we’re invading….”

—even though the invading is so 5-years ago—

“…that’s what they want it to look like …”

–because Laurence of Arabia is their favorite movie too!—

“…if we retreat, sure, we’re in retreat; but I think that there are other ways to end this war than simple retreat. I think there are ways to end it if we had a great leader perhaps…I’m not sure we have on the horizon, maybe it is McCain — to find a way — maybe we should elect a Republican in order to get us out of the war because irony seems to be a better bet than what we’ve gotten…”

—because most wars aren’t successfully ended by sarcasm or snippy remarks but by a shared sense of irony—

“…Because this administration promised humility in foreign policy and we’ve gotten the opposite we’ve gotten…So? [quoting Cheney’s recent reaction to public opinion]. That’s our policy right now.”

—until Iraq attacked us of course, and then Bush said “bring it on” by which he meant “expect to be broughten-upon an’ whatnot” and that’s actually been the policy since his day-one in office, but Bush had to figure out where Iraq was first of all and that took him 9 months—and just in time, too!

So to summarize, as per Chris and Laurence of Arabia; what we need is a leader with the personal greatness to get sodomized by Turks and then get killed riding a motorbike, and that leader, let’s face it, can only be John McCain!

Are you getting all your friends in CDA to vote for Obama?