Posted on 10/29/2008 8:17:20 AM PDT by SmithL
Let me now defend white males. We can't possibly be as dumb as the polls showing we are McCain's most reliable voting base would indicate. Do we white men believe for an instant that a vote for John McCain would not represent more of President Bush's failed economic policies at home and costly military adventures abroad, and if so, why are a majority of us expected to vote against the positive change that Barack Obama so clearly represents?
Most of us know how to read, and can even Google, so why would we think that GOP candidate McCain, who has supported Bush on every one of his economic initiatives, is now the anti-Bush? What exactly did McCain mean when he said, referring to his Democratic opponent during a campaign speech in Ohio on Monday, "We both disagree with President Bush on economic policy?"
Is McCain unaware that he consistently voted for the red ink run up by the Bush administration, or was he having a senior moment when he said that same day, "We cannot spend the next four years as we spent much of the last eight: Spending ourselves into a ditch, and hoping that the consequences don't come?"
The only time McCain took issue with Bush's economic policy was in his short-lived criticism of the tax cut for the rich - a strategy he now defends. But if McCain doesn't increase taxes for someone, just how does he plan to pay for the trillions in debt racked up by the war in Iraq, which are now vastly compounded by the banking bailout? On Monday McCain gave his answer: "I will freeze government spending on all but the most important programs, like defense, veterans' care, Social Security and health care, until we scrub every single government program...
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
I think that John McCain is going to get a lot more Democrat voters than anyone could mention. Today I went into my local McDonald’s’s for a breakfast sandwich and coffee. While I was eating, I overheard 6 retired union workers talking. Those guys meet there everyday for coffee to ‘shoot the crap’. I know that they were big Hillary backers during the primary and have, on occassion, been at odds with Bush so I know they don’t like him or Republicans. When the issue of the Khaladi tapes came up on one of the TV’s, one of the guys mentioned that there was a tape of another terrorist being linked to Obama and they all started to talk in very subdued voices (almost whispers). I was stunned to overhear that they all admitted to each other that they will vote for McCain. The telling thing was that they all felt like they had to admit it in subdues voices as if they were afraid of being overheard by the KGB. I can honestly admit that if McCain is going to get these guys to vote for him, he ought to get a whole lot more traditional Dems to vote for him.
Well, this cracker wants change; that is why I didn’t support McCain during the primaries. But, I support McCain now because the other candidate wants me to change from the frying pan to the burner. No thank you!
Why even post the ravings of this Maoist, traitorous s.o.b.? His only purpose is subversion of the truth.
My, my. The MSM is not wasting any time responding to Obama’s falling poll numbers.
First of all, Robert, if you are an example of what a Man is supposed to be then we must be suffering from Reverse Evolution!
Nice try, Robert, but it's incontrovertible that McCain wanted tightened regulation on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac long before it was fashionable, the democrats at the time (including Obama) would hear none of it.
Change in and of itself is not a good thing
>> Let me now defend white males.
I read his entire column, and failed to see any such defense. The whole thing was a regurgitated Obama stump speech. He attacked Bush and McCain ...
>> We can’t possibly be as dumb as the polls showing we are McCain’s most reliable voting base would indicate.
We?
>> Do we white men believe for an instant that a vote for John McCain would not represent more of President Bush’s failed economic policies at home and costly military adventures abroad
Perhaps “we” don’t all agree with you.
>> ... why are a majority of us expected to vote against the positive change that Barack Obama so clearly represents?
Clearly.
H
We’re supposed to give obama our paychecks, savings, and all future earnings, and all we get back is “change”?
I’ll not stand by idly while a committed subversive plots to undermine the Constitution of the Republic of the United States of America.
What elites like Scheer never grasp is that among his “unwashed” the idea still flourishes that if you stick to Principles and Morality and plain old Effort, you will succeed in the United States.
Or better, why would we vote for someone who wants to raise our taxes, stunt economic growth, surrender our sovereignty, and expose our children to perversion at increasingly younger ages?
‘Cause whitey already gots change. I gots $tree-fitty right here in change.
Living in a house and then moving into a rundown apartment in East LA is also change, Mr. Scheer.
Do you mean the continued disenfranchisement of the white male? Or do you mean the exploitation of the middle class as an engine of dialectical devolution? What "change" is it that in any way FAVORS white males?
Robert Scheer is disgusting.
As a white man I am voting for Mccain/Palin because it is a RICH man that gives me a job.......raising this RICH mans taxes because of ‘fairness’ or neighborliness will rob me of possible future finacial secruity(a JOB!!!!).....it is that simple!!!!!!!!!!
Not only does Scheer sound like a Weasel...he LOOKS like a Weasel as well...
Why do liberal men hate their own manhood so much???
What a putz.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.