Print
E-mail
Share
digg
Newsvine
Facebook
Stumble
Technorati
reddit
Fark
twitterLETTER TO THE EDITOR:
GOP ticket wrong on the big issues
Saturday, Sept. 13, 2008 | 2:04 a.m.
Sarah Palin reminds me of baked Alaska (hot, cold and flaming). Lest we not forget that the McCain-Palin ticket stands for unwise wars of aggression, tax cuts for the rich and an end to a woman’s right to choose. Whereas the Obama-Biden ticket stands for intelligence backed up by experience, an end in sight for an unpopular and unwise war, tax increases on the rich and the continuation of a woman’s right to choose.
I am disheartened by the recent polls that show the McCain ticket leading or in a dead heat with the Obama ticket. Are the American people really in favor of four more years just like the past eight? Aren’t our economy, our deficits and our declining status in the world community enough to try something different?
Discussion: 14 comments so far…
Post a comment
- Most Read
- Discussed
- Most E-mailed
- Corrections officer with Metro killed in U.S. 95 crash
- System fails to catch contractor’s family tie with county
- The pull of a drug, a push to the brink
- Where to watch UFC 106
- Findlay guard Joseph scores 33, talks about UNLV
- UNLV and Southern Illinois will be guarded tonight
- Bishop Gorman takes Sunset Region title in win over Cimarron
- Basic’s magical season continues with trip to state semifinals
- Reid clears major health care hurdle, daunting weeks ahead
- Was there an ulterior motive in parking the stripper-mobile?
Blogs
Culture and Entertainment
UFC 106 walk-in music: Griffin changes his tune, secures win over Ortiz
The Kats Report
For props, Lewis Black needs only his manic delivery and torrid material (7 Comments)
Elsewhere
Sands China raises $2.5 billion in Hong Kong IPO (2 Comments)
Marquardt v. Sonnen scheduled for UFC 109
Bloggity, Bloggity, Bloggity
Will a fourth consecutive title by Jimmie Johnson be good or bad for NASCAR? (4 Comments)
Top Chef: Las Vegas
The Jet Stream: And then there were four
Top Chef Episode 12: On keeping it simple
- Live chat
- Tuesday, noon PST
- Chat with Krista Creelman
- Problem Gambling Center executive director Krista Creelman will answer questions about gambling addiction from Las Vegas Sun readers from noon to 1 p.m. Tuesday, Nov. ... Submit question
Calendar »
- 22 Sun
- 23 Mon
- 24 Tue
- 25 Wed
- 26 Thu
-
The Four Tops at The Orleans Showroom
Orleans Hotel-Casino
-
The Chase at Downtown Cocktail Room
Downtown Cocktail Room | 10 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.
-
Lady Gaga album release party at Revolution Lounge
Beatles Revolution Lounge | 10 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.
-
Food drive at Christian Audigier
Christian Audigier The Nightclub | 10 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.
-
Above & Beyond at Moon
Moon Nightclub | 10 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.
The Sun
Locally owned and independent for more than 50 years.
Gary Brooks ask "Aren’t our economy, our deficits and our declining status in the world community enough to try something different?"
Absolutely.
Going with Obama means going with Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Joe Biden. Nothing new there.
Going with Obama means going with redistribution economics which gave us the Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton recessions. Nothing new there.
Going with Obama means going with the Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton foreign policy which gave us Iran in it present form. No Change there.
Obama has no record of taking on anyone lest of all Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi.
Polls reflect people seeing that McCain-Palin will stop the money trin from pulling out of D.C, get the lobbyist out of D.C., and a willingness and record to taken anybody in D.C.
Comes down to the age old question. Are you better off today than you were 8 years ago? If you answer yes, vote for McCain. If your answer is no, vote for Obama.
Clinton's administration balanced the budget and had surpluses his last two years. Bush took the surpluses and decimated them into record deficits. Bush in essence passed the highest tax increase to your children and grandchildren.
Clinton decreased the size of government with welfare reform and budget reform. Bush had the largest expansion in government with the Medicare prescription plan, TSA, and bail out after bail out of private corporations.
Bush appointed 'cronies' into positions they are clearly not qualified for. "Good job Brownie" (Katrina disaster).
Bush's economic policies are bankrupting our nation and selling off key assets to foreigners.
Bush's energy policies allowed oil to rise 560%. What did you expect for a Texas oilman?
Bush deregulated banking laws causing our financial melt down.
Bush policies encouraged corporations to send jobs overseas then rewarded them with tax breaks for doing so.
A vote for McCain is a vote for bankrupting our nation and more unjustified wars.
McCain's campaign is run by Washington lobbyists. Do you really believe he will run them out of town? Alaska is the largest recipient of earmarks. Will Palin push for more or less earmarks for Alaska.
Does the Iran-Contra scandal of the Reagan administration have anything to do with Iran's current problems?
Obama has refused donations from lobbyists and PAC's. McCain is mainly financed by lobbyists and PAC's.
My portfolio more than doubled during the Clinton administration. It is bearly above the rate of inflation under the Bush administration.
Which choice, Obama or McCain, has the best chance of change?
Yes, Obama wants to increase taxes on capital job creation investments.
That will hurt Las Vegas.
Obama is to understand that his tax increase will hurt the economy and is considering to change his tax plan.
Obama is so pro-abortion that he is the only state senator to vote against a bill that would have given human legal rights to babies born from botched abortions.
Obama's only experience in foreign policy is what Clinton said was a fairy tale.
As for his expert VP, ere is Biden speech on supporting the Iraq war and the so-called "Bush Doctrine" (whatever that is...only 1,000x different verisons).
"The point about whether or not there needs to be an imminent threat to justify the President taking action is what is at stake. I am of the school that suggests the President need not, if the underlying amendment passes, have to show there is an imminent threat. He is enforcing a peace agreement in effect. He is enforcing, not preempting. And he is not responding to imminent threat."
"What we have here, I argue, as the rationale for going after Saddam, is that he signed a cease-fire agreement. The condition for his continuing in power was the elimination of his weapons of mass destruction, and the permission to have inspectors in to make sure he had eliminated them. He expelled those inspectors. So he violated the cease-fire; ergo, we have authority--not under a doctrine of preemption. This will not be a preemptive strike, if we go with the rest of the world. It will be an enforcement strike."
"The reason I oppose the amendment of my friend from Michigan is because the basic premise upon which I began is consistent with where my friend from Connecticut began, and that is the threat need not be imminent for us to take action. That is because we would be enforcing Security Council resolutions. That is authority we are about to delegate to the President."
"The bottom line was, the Senator from Arizona and I felt strongly we had to go. We had to move. Were the Serbs an imminent threat to the United States of America? No. Was it a threat to our security interests? Yes. The stabilization of southeastern Europe. And so I think part of the thing that confuses people here--anyone listening to the debate, myself included, as part of the debate--is this notion of the place from which you began."
McCain/Palin: Earmarks of $10 Billion Dollars a Month to Iraq for the next 100 years, including 130,000 American Troops. Now thats an "earmark" that our bridges and hiways could use.
Gomer Pyle for president.
"Polls reflect people seeing that McCain-Palin will stop the money trin from pulling out of D.C, get the lobbyist out of D.C"
McCain's already gotten the lobbyists out of DC. They're running his campaign. From the Washington Post:
"For years, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has railed against lobbyists and the influence of "special interests" in Washington, touting on his campaign Web site his fight against "the 'revolving door' by which lawmakers and other influential officials leave their posts and become lobbyists for the special interests they have aided."
"But when McCain huddled with his closest advisers at his rustic Arizona cabin...to map out his presidential campaign, virtually every one was part of the Washington lobbying culture he has long decried. His campaign manager, Rick Davis, co-founded a lobbying firm whose clients have included Verizon and SBC Telecommunications. His chief political adviser, Charles R. Black Jr., is chairman of one of Washington's lobbying powerhouses, BKSH and Associates, which has represented AT&T, Alcoa, JPMorgan and U.S. Airways.
"Senior advisers Steve Schmidt and Mark McKinnon work for firms that have lobbied for Land O' Lakes, UST Public Affairs, Dell and Fannie Mae."
This is the guy who wants us to believe he is the agent of change?
McCain's health care program will tax health benefits if your employer provides it to you. That would be a very significant hidden tax in his program.
McCain does not think we are better off than 8 years ago. Yet proudly states he voted FOR 90% of Bush's policies.
Watch a video of the real McCain here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEtZlR3zp...
If you want real change email the video to 10 of your friends and ask them to do the same.
It still amazes me that middle-class people vote republican. The republicans and George Bush are all about helping themselves and their corporate friends. Obama has said he is going to cut taxes for the middle class. Unless you make $400,000 per year, it's time to get the republicans out of office! Don't them the republicans fools us again! Palin is clouding the issues, don't let that happen to you....
McCain's running as a "change" candidate?
What? "Change My Positions" candidate is more like it!
He's "changed" on the offshore drilling moratorium, windfall-profit tax, his own immigration legislation, his own campaign finance legislation, warrantless wiretapping, privatizing Social Security, protecting abortion rights in cases of rape and incest, the estate tax, indefinite detention of terror suspects, normalizing relations with Cuba, diplomacy with Hamas, diplomacy with Syria, waterboarding, the DREAM act, Roe v. Wade, gay marriage, Bush's tax cuts, ethanol, and the Confederate flag.
Not even the neocons around here can tell me where he stands. They simply don't know.
LOL, change? From a guy who boasted about supporting the Bush administration 90% of the time?
To quote John McCain, "That's not change we can believe in!"
Obama is for change, too!
Everyday he changes something.
He has realized that his tax increase on job creation capital investment will hurt the economy.
He is considering dropping or reducing those taxes.
Watch this tribute to Obama from an Iraq War Veteran on Obama's saying Iraq is a mistake.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG4fe9GlW...
Good Obama video:
http://hypemovie.com/index.html
Obama and Reid are war-baiting in Afghanistan. Now they want thousands more GIs to go to get one guy.
The Pro-war Harry Reid and Barak Obama want to double down on Bush's mini-surge in Afghanistan.
The pro-war Harry Reid and Barak Obama want to double down on Bush's cross-border attacks in Pakistan.
The anti-war Obama notoriously claims that he would not have voted for the “dumb” Iraq war based on unclassified information in the NY Times. Obama did not participate in the actionable decision at 2:00 a.m. on October 11, 2002, when the Senate was called on to vote as to whether to authorize President Bush to invade Iraq.
The pro-war Democratic and McCain made that decision based on the available Classified Intelligence. On 6-5-2008, the Democratic Senate Intelligence committee came out and in a 171 page report and confirmed that Bush administration and Congressional statements on Iraq WMD were backed up by available (but flawed) U.S intelligence.
The pro-war Obama told AIPAC on 6-4-2008, that he “would do everything - and I mean everything to stop Iran from gaining nuclear capability”.
The same day the pro-war Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi (who are against the Iraq war) also backed Obama’s more aggressive approach.
However, in light of the latest U.S declassified intelligence report that there no WMDs in Iran, Obama, Reid, and Pelosi have failed to make a case as to why they want to apply sanctions or bomb Iran. The intelligence says Iran has stopped the nuclear bomb development.
What is Obama basing his pro-war / anti-war judgment on when to go to war or when not go to war?
America's swirling down the toilet thanks to the GOP and now we are going to elect another GOP to the White House? I guess the old phrase "those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it," would apply here!
God help us all if that holds out!
Cause we will be down the drain with 4 more years of the GOP! By then the Iraq war will be around almost as long as the last American war disaster, Vietnam! Gasoline will be 6 or 7 bucks a gallon and a buck more for diesel! And a gallon of milk will be about the same! And the government will have a camera on EVERY street corner to keep an eye on us all, in the name of security from terrorism!
Yup lets elect McCain/Palin! Only you better ask Sarah where she buys her moose gun from, cause you may need it to defend yourself from the anarchy that will well up!