The Republican Party polls at an all-time low, and I see that as a sign that the American people are fed up with the continued efforts by Republicans to spend American lives and billions in tax dollars in Iraq as they attempt to manipulate and weasel Americans into keeping them in power through the same fear-mongering tactics they've used in the past.
John McBush previously said that he expects we'll be in Iraq fighting until 2013. If you think it's a coincidence that 2013 is one year after the next Presidential election you must be in a coma.
What John McBush is telling us in that statement is that if he's elected he has no intention of ending the Iraq War during his first term, just as George Bush had no intention of ending the Iraq War prior to his re-election run in 2004. Once again, the Republicans will use "War on Terror" lies to hoodwink the American people.
But now it's getting worse. McBush is showing absolutely no pretense or interest in ending the war, and he'll let it drag on as long as and as far as the Republican Party wants it to...
McCain pledges that he's willing to send unlimited troops to Iraq:
"Will your support be there for however many U.S. troops are required?"
Sacrificing American lives for the good of their political party. Can we afford to have Republicans in power any longer? What we'll have if John McBush is elected is a repeat performance of Bush term 1, and that's something this nation and its hard-working people cannot afford.
John McBush will send more troops to Iraq, as many as are needed without limit. Is that what the American people want as well?
Comments (7)
Mr Ward,
While I certainly understand your critiques of McCain, I don't understand your insistence on calling McCain "McBush."
It kinda takes away from the points you are trying to make, IMO. Just sayin.
1. Posted by ryan a | June 10, 2008 2:09 PM
Posted on June 10, 2008 14:09
What's not to understand? John McCain is offering us four more years of failed Bush economic policies, which McCain is embracing now even though he opposed them to some extent previously?
Why? Because he wants to extend the failures of Bush for another four more years.
"McBush" fits the situation perfectly.
But I didn't invent the name - Google "McBush" and you'll find 250,000 hits -- it's becoming common usage.
Senator John McBush - he's a bad choice.
2. Posted by Lee Ward![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://wizbangblue.com/nav-commenters.gif)
| June 10, 2008 2:16 PM
Posted on June 10, 2008 14:16
I prefer "McSame" because it kinda rhymes. ;)
3. Posted by Ryan | June 10, 2008 3:09 PM
Posted on June 10, 2008 15:09
McSame has a nice ring to it, Ryan.
4. Posted by Lee Ward | June 10, 2008 3:17 PM
Posted on June 10, 2008 15:17
ya, i get it lee. it's not that it's over my head or anything. it's just that i doubt using that particular language is going to get through to anyone--outside of the "Blue" sphere that is.
seems to me it's just going to piss people off. but maybe that's the point.
5. Posted by ryan a | June 10, 2008 6:30 PM
Posted on June 10, 2008 18:30
Well well well...If we are going to give the Presidential candidates nick names how about McHypocrite or McLiar for Obama. You liberals are so in love with Obama only because he is not a Republican. That is not a good enough reason to vote for him. But I suppose the 20 something crowd of this great nation is so stupid that they prefer to vote for a leader who is dynamic but doesn't have the experience of knowledge to run the greatest country in the world..Correction...America used to be great until the liberals started to bully the rest of the law abiding citizens. Why are you so hateful of America? Why do you shout and scream so much to have you your voices heard? Oh yeah...I remember. Only children throw tantrums and complain for no reason. If you really want America to stop "fighting terrorism" how about going to the terrorists and demand that they stop killing people of the world? Liberals are all talk and no action. If you truly wanted America to pull out of Iraq why hasn't the Democratic controlled Congress done so? I am looking forward to your explanation. Feel free to call Nancy Pelosi and ask her if you can't figure it out by yourself.
6. Posted by jake | June 10, 2008 7:34 PM
Posted on June 10, 2008 19:34
"...seems to me it's just going to piss people off"
Maybe those who might get pissed off about me calling Senator McCain "McBush" should have done more to select a candidate who was less-willing to follow George's lead.
But McBush is trying to hold onto his GOP base, and most of the loyal GOPers are comfortable with Bush's tax, health care, and Iraq policy - so McCain is absolutely powerless to do anything to distance himself from Bush's path - despite the fact that this hurts him among other constituencies.
7. Posted by Lee Ward![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://wizbangblue.com/nav-commenters.gif)
| June 10, 2008 7:41 PM
Posted on June 10, 2008 19:41