Posted on 06/29/2008 10:17:58 PM PDT by Red Steel
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Hours after sparring with Barack Obama over immigration, John McCain told crowd at fundraiser Saturday night that "Sen. Obama's word cannot be trusted."
"You know, this election is about trust, and trusting people's word, and unfortunately apparently on several items, Sen. Obama's word cannot be trusted," McCain said in Louisville, Kentucky.
The comment came as McCain criticized Obama for reversing positions on public financing and other issues.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell introduced McCain and joked that the two don't always see eye-to-eye.
McCain said, "I take difficult positions sometimes. Mitch will tell you, I'm not elected Ms. Congeniality every year in the United States Senate. But the fact is that I'll keep my word to the American people, and you can trust me."
McCain's charges followed speeches from both candidates at the annual conference of NALEO, the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials.
At the conference, Obama accused McCain of backing down on immigration reform for political reasons.
"One place where Sen. McCain used to offer change was on immigration. He was a champion of comprehensive reform, and I admired him for it. But when he was running for his party's nomination, he walked away from that commitment and he's said he wouldn't even support his own legislation if it came up for a vote. We can't vacillate. We can't shift," Obama said Saturday in Washington.
McCain, who spoke before Obama, also issued a strong challenge to Obama over his call for the Illinois senator to join him in a town hall meeting.
Both candidates were trying to reach out to the Latino voting bloc.
Much of McCain's speech focused on the issues he has been pushing throughout the week: energy solutions and the lagging economy.
Obama touched on the importance of
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Like McCain’s can?
Obama is whatever you want him to be. Whatever it takes to get elected. 2nd amendment? That depends on what you want him to be.
Yeah, but the Ruth Bader Ginsberg clones Obama will put on the Court will eliminate the 2nd Amendment right, no matter what Obama says now.
If anyone ought to know, John McCain would.
Duh!
Because Obama has NPR and has problems making eye contact.
http://bodylanguagelady.com/2008/03/02/obamas-revealing-body-language/
Don’t look now, but John will vote to confirm them if he does. It’s his duty. LMAO
With McLame, it’s what he’s promised to do that is scary....
McCain: “I didn’t win on immigration reform, but I’ll go back at it. And I’m glad I did it.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2037451/posts
With Osama HUSSEIN Obama, it’s what he’s promised that he’s NOT going to do that is the problem...he’s been dishonest so many times, nothing he says can be taken as truthful.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dl32Y7wDVDs
If he means any of the promises made in the video above, he’s disqualified himself to be CIC...not that I’d expect to see that on the evening news.
So what do we do?
I love how McCain says Hussein can’t be trusted on immigration. Is it clear what McCain told that group of Mexicans he met with in private a few weeks ago?
So you compare a radical Marxist Obama that is the enemy of this website to Mccain ? Your a useful idiot for Obama and his radical left puppet masters. The Obama drones are attacking this site and your posting Mccain hater post . Brillant.
I’m hoping to board an Oceanic flight and get marooned on an island with Kate, where there are no newspaper to even let me know who won.
You take Kate and I’ll take Sawyer :)
Circular Firing Squad.
Barr voters supporting Obama
"Your" is an adjective. You used it twice in place of the correct "you're". "Mccain" is supposed to be spelled "McCain". The period comes immediately after the word "post" - no space. And "Brilliant" is the proper spelling of that word.
Now to the issue at hand - McCain says that Obama's word can not be trusted. McCain says this the day after he says to a Hispanic gathering that he will push for amnesty and citizenship for ALL the illegals in the U.S from his first day in office. McCain lied throughout the primaries saying that he "got the message - secure the borders first". So tell me - is that McCain hatred, or is that pointing out McCain's hypocrisy?
I hope you’re a girl (and so does Sawyer). :-0
Well I’m not signing on to any plan that sees a leftist installed from our side, so that all Democrats and all Republicans support his policies. That’s for sure.
“You should be helping to cover up his hypocrisy and his record. After all, he has an R after his name.”
That’s pretty much what conservatives have been doing up to now.
If you’re trying to tell me that every kid in class does it, I don’t care. You’re my kid and you’re not going to get away with it.
You sound like a fourth grader NCalBurt. Don’t justify doing wrong by claiming everyone else does it.
Haven’t we complained about the Senate being a cesspool for a long time? Why is it that we defend ourselves by that measuring stick now. We didn’t last year.
ROTFLMAO! Yes, I’m a girl :)
I figured you were a guy with the Kate comment.
Saw your post on latest posts and since I’m hooked on LOST and especially the character Sawyer ;) it grabbed my attention. I’m so not happy that Sawyer isn’t one of the Oceanic 6.
I can’t stand McCain. I can’t stand Obama more. We’re screwed.
I’ve read your posts recently on McCain and other issues. You make a lot of sense and I’ve learned tons reading your posts.
I’ve never been as conflicted as I am now about voting for POTUS. I keep coming back to it being McCain or Obama and we know what Obama will give us and nothing about that will be good for our Country. One of the two will be POTUS. McCain isn’t my 1st or 2nd or 3rd choice. Obama has never been a choice for me. I’m just not sure now is the time to allow someone like Obama to be the leader of the most powerful nation on earth. 4 years is a long time.
I still can’t believe that one of these two will be President.
The entire senate voted for both Clinton nominees 98 to 0 or close to that . You SPUN these facts to leave a false impression that McCain’s votes were unusual. Who are you kidding ? You are very dedicated on getting Obama elected aren’t you.
Do you really believe a word printed by CNN ? Its an Obama infomercial.
Only a fool would believe a word McCain says.
People who live in glass houses....
His speech writers know what they’re doing.
‘Ms Congeniality’ is a funnier line and is more fluent than the extra-syllable Mister. Also: he’s making the point that he’s not a beauty queen (as opposed to Obama). Good stuff.
Very interesting analysis! Thanks.
Pass it around to your associates by email.
I just gave it to 10 friends who might send it to 10 friends.
We can start a chain?
Plus...it’s not a partisan site.
It’s not a VRWC against Obama.
Maybe a Hillary Supporter did the analysis.
Totally agree.
We have a sinking ship with the Republican party but we have no choice but to trust McCain to get our ship back to shore.
I worry about Obama!
Do we really want another Messiah!?
It’s okay to have a Messiah but during wartime?
We are still at war with the Islamic facist.
We have very evil people out there who want to see America falter.
They think Obama is the ticket because they see weakness.
We are at a critical crossroad that will decide our future well being.
Says the weasle in another one of his weaslly ways.. in a weaslly campaign of weasles..
Only thing missing was a version of Hakuna Matata sung iin the back ground..
They all vote for whomever the President picks for SCOTUS by about 90%. What matters is who the President originally picks.
You might be right; but to me it’s still kinda stupid. Maybe I’m just overreacting.
You’re not alone with those thoughts. We all have them. I don’t like the idea of thinking that it’s better to keep Conservatism viable as a check against the left. That does seem the only option to me.
I look at what voting for the lesser of two evils has gained us, and all I see is John McCain’s mug. It’s revolting.
We either take a stand and let the Republican party know that it’s has jumped the shark with this nominee, or we signal that no matter how far left they go, we’ll still be there supporting the unsupportable.
For me it’s this election. For a lot of others it won’t be.
We’ll see how it turns out. I appreciate the nice comments.
Take care.
Your perception is that I spun McCain’s act as unusual. The fact is they were wrong, not all that unusual at all. Ginsberg had three people vote against her in all the Senate. They were all Republicans. John wasn’t one of them.
One of the other terrible nominees had nine Senators vote again him. John wasn’t one of them.
If others can see the truth and vote against dismal appointments, why can’t John? It is his mandate you know.
The Senators get the option of voting against poor judges for a reason. And voting against your own president’s poor nominees is not something that will be rewarded in kind by the Democrats. So what’s John’s excuse?
John is just too busy to do his homework.
Senators are supposed to weed out unfit judges.
Activist legislating from the bench judges are not adhering to the mandates of the U. S. Constitution. They are unfit to serve. And if a Senator can’t grasp that, then they are also unfit to serve. And this is where John McCain comes in.
John voted to affirm four of the five SCOTUS justices who have been voting against us recently, 4 out of the 5 most recent cases. If John would have put his foot down even once, we should have won all five of those cases.
We appointed 7 of the 9 current justices and still have problems. Do you want that to continue or not? Evidently so.
They don't though. Not sure how it works but it seems that there is some unspoken rule that they all pass whomever the current President picks. Always has been that way. It's like the prize for winning the Presidential election.
I don’t disagree with that, but is that reasoned?
If you were in the Senate of the United States, would you feel comfortable voting for an activist judge? I couldn’t do it. Color me an untouchable if you like, but my concience would not allow me to vote in a Ginsberg. I don’t think you could either.
We didn’t even reject her. I’ve been voting for close to forty years now. Every time I cast a ballot for a Senator, it was in part based on the assumption that they had the final say on Supreme Court justices. And now I’m being told that Senators should never object to one?
Well, I know what I would do, gentlemen’s agreement be damned. Perhaps I’d relent on the other sides judges so that a range war wouldn’t break out, but I woudln’t vote for a Ginsberg no matter what. And I would vet my own president’s judges in great detail.
There’s simply no excuse for us nominating seven of nine judges and still having problems getting a five to four decision in our favor.
It was stated recently that four out of five important decisions handed down recently, went against us. There’s just no excuse for that, our team having appointed seven of nine of the justices.
This is one reason I can’t give McCain a pass. He has hurt our cause. I don’t like it.
Maybe someone can explain why this is done by all of them. I have no clue why they do it. But to say that McCain is the only one and should be singled out is unfair.
Wait a sec...we are not supposed to put SCOTUS judges to a political litmus test, they are theoretically supposed to be impartial to politics. Just answered my own question.
The Scotus Judges are not supposed to be subjected to a political litmus test. They are theoretically supposed to be impartial.
Your first post to me on the matter is the reason. The gentlemen’s agreement is that you don’t stand in the way of the nomination. And why the hell not? Is that reason valid? It wouldn’t be for me.
If I had a nomination to address, I would make sure I had a very good sampling of their rulings in front of me. I would ask for judicial review articles. I would ask for a reveiw of what the word on the street was, and look into the nomination as much as I could. And if I came away with any inkling that the judge was an activist, or was legislating from the bench, they’d never get my vote.
Now, as for why I am singling out McCain, it’s because he is the candidate in question. If I were addressing others, I would mention it for each of them.
Where was that standard with Robert Bork? Where was it when the Democrats were filibustering all of President Bush's appointees? We know where John McCain was then; forming the Gang of 14 to oppose the Republican Congress that was getting ready to drop the hammer on the Dems unConstitutional filibustering.
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.